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 .

Alleged Inadmissibility of Amendment to Motion, Government Business No. 34

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate.

I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses.

Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion.

The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill.

If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12.

Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that:

it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order...

The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few.

The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Opposition Motion—Home Ownership and Renting Affordability

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

Mr. Speaker, I somewhat disagree with what my colleague just said about the NDP always being prepared to support housing measures.

Before Christmas, we voted on Bill C-31, which sought to send a $500 cheque to everyone who earns less than $20,000 a year and puts more than 30% of their income toward housing. Most tenant advocacy organizations in Quebec criticized this measure, saying that it was the kind of thing a right-wing government would do. The government was just sending out cheques so that it could say that it was helping people.

That does not build housing. The government spent a lot of money sending out those one-time cheques. Obviously, they were good for people who need housing and who do not have a lot of money. However, the government could have taken that money and built housing units so that, in a few years' time, more disadvantaged people could have a roof over their heads and a place to call home.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this issue.

I would like to begin by congratulating the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for La Prairie, who led the fight for the single tax return in the Quebec National Assembly a few years ago and is now leading it here. It is an important fight.

It is a bit surreal to think that we are at this point today, wondering whether people should file one tax return or two. This is not rocket science; it makes absolutely no sense. Besides, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned, people in Quebec are the only ones who file two tax returns. It is too much paperwork, just a lot of paperwork. It is a problem.

People across Canada have no idea what this is like. They do not know what it is like to have to file two tax returns and fill out lines 287 and 544 two or three times when the issues and restrictions are not the same. It is complicated, and not everyone can afford accountants.

We saw what happened with a very important issue recently. Under Bill C-31, those who earn less than $20,000 a year and pay more than 30% of their income for housing are supposed to get $500, but many people could not find the form and did not know they were entitled to this $500. It is odd that we are talking about this, but there are plenty of people in Quebec who have run into these problems.

There is a problem here. There is already too much red tape, too much paperwork. We cannot understand why our Liberal friends and their NDP lackeys insist on saying no to such a measure. Perhaps it is because it comes from Quebec, because it would give Quebec more power and because it might make Quebeckers realize that, basically, they no longer need Ottawa. We already know that. We can say so, because that is why we are here. We are here because we believe that we no longer need Ottawa on many fronts. Ottawa always enjoys attacking Quebec. Yes, there are fine words, always lots of fine words.

Let us talk about language, for example. I always want to talk about it because what we hear from the other side is always somewhat hypocritical. I have listened to the Liberals talk ever since I became an MP. They keep saying that they will pass legislation on the issue of language, that French is in decline and that they will address this by introducing a bill with teeth that will halt the decline of French. It is fascinating to hear.

Today, I am going to make a solemn declaration: The only way to halt the decline of French in Quebec is for Quebec to become independent. There is no other way to do it. We could quibble about Bill C‑13. Even Quebec's Bill 96, which is a good law and will result in some progress, will not resolve the problem in a tangible way. That is what I want to talk about. The Liberals are hypocrites when they say that they want to work on this issue. Behind the scenes, in committee, the government directs its members, its West Island bullies, to sabotage its own amendments and its own bill because the Liberals are allergic to anything that comes from Quebec and to anything that could give more power to Quebec. That is what is at stake, and that is what we are talking about. It is fascinating.

I saw them, the West Island ministers, when they went to Montreal to protest against Bill 96. It is not enough for them to play the hypocrites in the House and not introduce the measures we need. Now they are working to sabotage legislation that might offer a slight improvement in the decline of French. It is fascinating. We keep seeing this double standard where things that are allowed across Canada and not allowed in Quebec.

We also see what is happening in immigration, where there is another problem. Quebec needs more control over our immigration levels in order to ensure that we can integrate newcomers. What are we seeing instead? The government dreams of a Canada with a population of 100 million, where 500,000 people are welcomed every year. Quebec is letting in 50,000 people right now, and we cannot integrate them. For whatever reason, good or bad, we cannot integrate the people arriving in Quebec. It is a major problem. In fact, it is the major problem, and we cannot cope.

We need to create an ecosystem in Quebec to ensure that we are able to integrate the people who are arriving from all over. We want to welcome these people. We need them to help us out with the labour shortage, for example. We need people who come from all over and bring their amazing knowledge and culture with them. They will make a positive contribution to our Quebec, the nation we love. We said that we needed more power. Mr. Legault got elected by saying that he would get that power from Ottawa. What was the answer he was given?

The answer was no. It seems that any request that comes from Quebec is seen as dangerous. The federal government decides that there must be something behind it and that Quebeckers are bound to take advantage to do bad things. The federal government is scared of us.

We are talking about a savings of $425 million. How can the federal government say no to that? How can it say no to $425 million when needs are growing? According to the study my colleague mentioned earlier, we are missing out on $425 million in savings.

There is a housing crisis. We talked about it earlier, but it is worth mentioning time and again. In the 250-page budget, how many pages are dedicated to housing? One and a half pages. Canada needs 3.5 million housing units over the next 10 years. The housing crisis is the greatest challenge of our time, alongside the language crisis and the climate crisis. The budget contains 250 pages of numbers, statistics and measures, but only one and a half pages on the housing crisis. Unbelievable.

This budget is basically a slap in the face to every person who does not have adequate housing in Canada. It is basically a slap in the face to the 250,000 people in Quebec alone who are in dire need of housing.

Then there is climate change. The government is sending billions of dollars to billionaires. It is appalling. It is utterly outrageous. That is what these geniuses came up with when they sat down to talk about taxes and dream up measures.

I am currently touring Quebec to talk about the housing crisis. In Trois‑Rivières, a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence is sleeping in a car with her two children. The budget does nothing for her. There is no mention of her in the budget. In Longueuil, 17 people are living in a three-bedroom apartment. There is no mention of those 17 people in the budget. The government is not addressing this problem.

Here is what we are talking about. This measure would not only eliminate paperwork and red tape, but it would also save money. It would help the less fortunate.

Health is another file with urgent needs. Quebec asked for $6 billion. How much did it get? I am tired of talking about health transfers, but I do not know how else to communicate. Maybe we could sing about it. My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix could sing about it. I could get up on the desk and do a little dance to convey how inadequate the health transfers are. People are dying in Quebec's emergency rooms.

Quebec asked for $6 billion. How much did it get? Did it get $4.5 billion, $3.2 billion or $2.8 billion? No. It did not even get $1 billion. The government is not doing anything to help fix the problem. There is no support.

There are all kinds of good reasons to tackle this problem. Things are dire. It is a surreal issue. We must fix this. This is an issue that is unique to Quebec. I will state right away that it is true that Quebec wants more powers. We do not want just a single tax return, we want all the powers. We want Quebec's independence.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to recommence speaking to such an important topic, but also on our government's record of assisting Canadians at this period of time.

Our government is well aware that many Canadians are struggling to put food on the table during this period of high inflation. We go to the grocery store and cannot help but feel discouraged to see the price of the food we eat every day continue to rise. Milk, meat, bread, fruit and vegetables all cost more now. Many families across the country are struggling to make ends meet these days because of inflation.

However, it is important to remember that inflation is a global phenomenon, and food inflation is no exception. It is the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and has been exacerbated by Vladimir Putin's illegal and barbaric war in Ukraine. To make things worse, snarled supply chains are affecting people and businesses around the world.

However, there is some room for hope in Canada. While inflation was 8.1% in June, it is now down to 6.9%, lower than what we see in many peer economies. For example, in the United States, it is at 7.7%. The EU is in double digits at 10%, and in the United Kingdom is 11.1 %. Still, inflation at 6.9% in Canada is too high.

I do personally, as an economist, forecast inflation going down in the quarters ahead, which will bring much needed relief to Canadian families.

On the bright side of things, as we are all bracing for a global economic slowdown, I believe there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Indeed, Canada has an unemployment rate near its record low, as more than 500,000 more Canadians are working today than at the beginning the pandemic. We also have the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year and the lowest net debt and deficit-to-GDP ratios in the G7. On top of that, our country maintains its AAA credit rating from all three rating agencies.

However, we understand that a large number of Canadians will continue to struggle. The next few months will be difficult for our friends, families and neighbours because of inflation.

Many Canadians need help to get through the crisis, and our government is there for them. For example, with our affordability plan, we are putting forward a suite of measures totalling $12.1 billion to help Canadians make ends meet and provide for their families.

It is important to note that the measures we are putting forward are not pouring unnecessary fuel on the inflation fire. They only provide targeted, fiscally responsible help to those who need it most.

I would like to remind my colleagues what our affordability plan has to offer. It would enhance the Canada workers benefit and put up to $2,400 more in the pockets of modest-income families. That would assist nearly three million Canadian workers on a yearly basis.

We will cut regulated child care fees by an average of 50% by the end of this year. As I noted in the first two minutes of my speech prior to question period, my family received news that, for little Leia, who is in day care now, the fees have been reduced by 25% and a further 25% will occur by the end of the year. That is great news for not only my family, and we are quite blessed, but also for families who need that assistance and help.

There is a 10% increase in old age security, which we had put in prior to the increase in global inflation. This will be $800 more for over three million seniors aged 75 and up who need it the most.

Regarding dental care, over 35,000 Canadians have signed up for their children under 12. These Canadians have incomes under $90,000 a year and do not have private insurance.

We will make a $500 payment to 1.8 million low-income renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

There is the doubling of the GST credit for six months, which is providing additional relief to 11 million individuals and families.

Everything is indexed to inflation. As I mentioned earlier this week, when speaking to Bill C-32, then finance minister Paul Martin introduced the indexation of all benefits of all marginal income tax rates to avoid what is called “tax creep” due to inflation. It was very important. It was one of the largest tax cuts ever introduced in Canadian history and provided a boost to incomes. It is great to see that continue.

When we think about the increase in the cost of living, it is due to the cost of groceries, of course, but it is also due to the cost of housing. Our government believes that everyone should have a safe and affordable place to call home. That goal was taken as a given for previous generations, but it is increasingly out of reach for far too many Canadians. Rents continue to climb across the country, pushing people further and further away from where they work.

With Bill C-31, we move forward with a one-time top-up to the Canada housing program. This will provide a tax-free payment of $500 to low-income renters, and 1.8 million Canadians will receive this. This payment will provide direct assistance to those who are most vulnerable to inflation and those experiencing housing difficulties.

These 1.8 million low-income renters include students who are struggling to pay for housing, and they will be eligible for this new assistance. This one-time top-up is part of a broader set of initiatives introduced in budget 2022. It will invest more than $9 billion to help make housing more affordable, including by alleviating the supply shortage, which is one of the main causes of the high cost of housing, particularly in the GTA.

In addition, with Bill C‑32, our government is moving forward with its ambitious package of measures to build more homes and make housing more affordable across the country.

In order to help Canadians afford a down payment faster, Bill C-32 proposes to move forward with a new tax-free home savings account. This account would allow prospective first-time homebuyers to save up to $40,000 tax-free toward buying their first home.

As with the registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP, contributions would be tax deductible and, as with the tax-free savings account, or TFSA, withdrawals would be non-taxable. The tax-free first home savings account is a new tool that will help prospective first-time homebuyers save for a down payment.

We will also enhance the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. The professional fees associated with real estate transactions are another hurdle. That is why we are proposing to double the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. The enhanced credit would provide up to $1,500.

I know my time is winding up, so I will stop there. I look forward to questions and comments from my hon. colleagues from all sides of this hon. place.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg South for his excellent speech today and for his answers to the questions, because he really hit the nail on the head.

This opposition motion makes a brief reference to pollution pricing. Pollution pricing is a good thing, because pollution has a price. It is not free to pollute. My hon. colleague from Winnipeg South mentioned that in his province, floods that should only happen once every 100 years have occurred twice. It has happened twice.

In my own riding, the Ottawa River burst its banks and caused flooding in 2017 and 2019. Statistically speaking, such floods should happen once a century, but they happened twice in three years. The climate crisis is here, and we need to get rid of practices that are not working anymore. The days when individuals, businesses, organizations and governments could pollute with impunity have passed. That is why I am very proud to say that we are going to be putting a price on pollution.

I am a firm believer in capitalism. I think it is good for people to earn money. We applaud all those who want to make money by producing a good or providing a service. If they pollute while doing so, however, they must pay. I have confidence in the wisdom and ingenuity of Canadians, and certainly in our entrepreneurs, who will find ways to produce goods while reducing their carbon emissions. That means they will pay less, their product will be more efficient and cheaper, and people will buy it because it works. That is the idea behind pollution pricing.

However, the motion before us today attempts to link the inflation we are experiencing today, the increase in prices, with pollution pricing. There is no link. When my colleague from Whitby was asking a question, he referred to a witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, on which my colleague sits. This witness is famous in Quebec and knows agriculture like the back of his hand. He was asked if the carbon tax was contributing to inflation and driving grocery prices up, and he said that it was not.

What is causing inflation is the global context. There are several factors. First of all, there was the pandemic. All the companies suddenly had to shut down to make sure that people were safe and that the COVID-19 virus did not spread. Eventually, thanks to the innovations that led to the development of vaccines, the economy started to reopen, following the advice of public health authorities.

All of a sudden, there were a lot of people all wanting to buy things at the same time. They wanted their freedom back. One or two people would have been okay, but when the whole world wants to buy things, it creates significant demand. Problems arose with supply chains around the world, especially in China because of its zero-COVID policy. That policy led to plant closures and disrupted supply chains worldwide. As if that were not enough, there is also Vladimir Putin's abhorrent war on Ukraine. It has hampered the flow of goods, creating product shortages and doubling price increases.

These are global trends that are happening, so what do we do? Canadians are facing price increases, but, unlike the official opposition, our government has an answer. Our answer is to help the most vulnerable Canadians. We are doing that in several different ways. Let me explain.

The first thing we want to do is make life more affordable for Canadians. With Bill C-30, we doubled the goods and services tax credit for a period of six months. The GST credit, which is in place to help the most vulnerable Canadians, is a tax-free payment to low- and modest-income individuals and families. Regardless of the circumstances, these people need a hand, especially these days. Our measure will put $2.5 billion in the pockets of around 11 million Canadians, and these individuals and families will be very happy to have this money for the next six months.

With Bill C-31, we created the Canada dental benefit. Once again, this benefit will put about $1,300 in Canadians' pockets to ensure that kids 12 and under have access to dental care. There is something else, too. We also paid $500 to 1.8 million low-income Canadian renters who are struggling to pay the rent. This is another targeted, non-inflationary support measure that will make a big difference for those in need.

Earlier this year, we increased old age security by 10% for people aged 75 and over. I can also talk about the Canada workers benefit, which is another way we are providing targeted assistance to support Canadians in need. This benefit is a refundable tax credit offered to Canadians and families who are working but earning a low or modest income.

All of these targeted and reasonable measures will help Canadians get through this global crisis. We can do all this while also fighting the climate crisis. That is what we have done in Canada. This will create a more sustainable economy, a healthier environment, and social cohesion. As parliamentarians, what are we good for if not bringing everyone together?

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I was a child, there were stories on TV. They all used to end with “they got married and had many children”. The NDP and the Liberals got married and had many closure motions. They impose closure on themselves. They impose closure on the House of Commons. We have never seen an opposition party so eager to keep quiet. Sometimes, when we hear them talk, we can understand them.

Seriously, the government has negotiated 20 closure motions with the NDP. There was a motion that said the government could extend sittings until midnight up to June 23, if it so desired.

Let us look at the legislative agenda: Today we are studying Bill C-32; tomorrow, Bill C-32; Thursday, Bill C-32; Friday, Bill C-32. That is what is on the agenda.

They can extend the sittings until midnight, but that is not enough for them. They are in a hurry. Their bill is urgent. What do they do? They decide. My colleague, the Minister of Tourism, said that they are fed up. I would like to remind them that they are in Parliament. This is a democracy. I know that the Prime Minister once said he admired China and China’s dictatorship, but at some point he will have to learn to listen to the opposition, because the opposition parties often have important and relevant things to say. It might inspire them not to introduce bills like Bill C-31. That is why the NDP is on its knees licking the Liberals’ shoes; it is all for Bill C-31.

I have been a member of the House for 10 years, and I have never seen such a rotten bill. It is not me saying that, it is Mario Dumont, when he wrote about dental insurance and Bill C-31 in his column. The bill was so badly put together that they must have been hanging their heads in shame as they drafted it. That is why the NDP supported 20 gag orders. It is a little embarrassing.

My question is for the NDP. Are members of the NDP not ashamed of having supported 20 gag orders and not saying anything?

Taxation

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I take a lot of time writing my notes, but to get off that for a second, at the request of my colleague, there was in fact a carbon price seven years ago, just not in his home province of Alberta. In my home province of B.C., there absolutely was a price on carbon, and guess what. During that period, British Columbia had the fastest-growing economy in the country at the same time as we had a carbon price. That is just some food for thought before I get into my extensive notes.

Our government understands that many Canadians are worried about our country's economy and that we are facing a global slowdown due to global challenges of high inflation and higher interest rates. However, it is important to remember that inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. Indeed, it is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic, Putin's illegal war on Ukraine and the snarled supply chains that are affecting so many people and businesses right around the world. The good news, though, is that no country is better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead.

Canada's inflation rate is less severe, at 6.9%, than those of our peers, like the United States, at 7.7%, the United Kingdom, at 11.1% and Germany, at 10.4%. We rely on Stats Canada to do those calculations. Also, our country has a AAA credit rating and has had the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year. That is alongside the lowest deficit- and net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. In fact, we have strengthened that advantage over the course of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is also near its record low, and 500,000 more Canadians are working today than before the pandemic.

We do appreciate, though, that this is a difficult time for families, friends and of course our neighbours. That is why we are now moving forward with targeted measures, including new ones introduced in the fall economic statement. For example, Bill C-32 would make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans permanently interest-free, including those currently being repaid.

We are also continuing to implement our government's affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. For example, with Bill C-31 having recently received royal assent, we are moving forward with the creation of the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 in families with annual incomes of less than $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. Also, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support earlier this month, and I thank my friend opposite for supporting that measure.

These are targeted measures that help make life more affordable for Canadians who need it the most, while being careful not to add fuel to the inflationary fire.

When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting more money back into the pockets of most Canadians. Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; it is an economic necessity.

Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. The Conservatives regularly conflate the increased cost in global commodity prices with a price on pollution, but this is a fundamental error in practice. In B.C., for example, the carbon price has increased by only two cents per litre over the last three years while the price of gas has increased by over a dollar. That means the Conservatives are regularly ignoring 98% of the real problem. They also ignore the fact that the federal carbon price is revenue-neutral and that it actually makes life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families through the climate action rebate.

Finance

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a viable alternative to fighting inflation. Two specific responsible measures will be implemented, thanks to the recent passage of Bill C-31: help for Canadians to pay their rents and support for their children to be able to receive proper dental care.

While the Conservatives think Bitcoin and buzzwords will solve inflation, we on this side will always stand on the side of supporting the middle class.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to hear my colleague boast about the government's actions.

He said earlier that they gave time to the House, that they voted to extend sitting hours until midnight with the NDP's agreement, that they are so democratic, and that they have so much to say. I forget how many gag orders they have forced on the House since I have been here. In fact, we spend half our time in the House debating adjournment motions in order not to debate. It is outrageous. Two weeks ago, they cut off debate on Bill C‑31, a very important bill for housing. In committee, they cut off debate on Bill C‑13 on reforming the Official Languages Act and they no longer want witnesses to be heard. The act has not been reformed in 50 years. There is a major language crisis in Canada and the Liberals do not want to debate it.

I cannot believe that they think this is a great democracy that spends its time debating the big issues.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to join the debate today on Bill C-32 as the government tries to push through some of its fall economic update. Not only are we talking about yet another bad bill, but again, it is trying to rush through the process of us reviewing it.

We saw this morning the government wants to cut short our debate by limiting it until the end of the day. To be clear, when I say “government” in this case, it applies to something more than what the Minister of Finance and the government House leader, as cabinet members, are supposed to represent when they introduce their bills or motions. It is something more than the wider Liberal caucus in this place that has stood by and supported the government's decision no matter the cost it brings to Canadians.

What is happening right now actually goes back to the agreement made earlier this year with the NDP. Yes, we are starting to see the NDP-Liberal coalition back in action.

It reminds me of when, not too long ago, Canadians first learned about a deal between the Liberals and the NDP. Everybody knew it was a convenient arrangement for these two parties to help each other stay in business, but they have been downplaying it from the time they announced it. They tried to pass it off as a working agreement on a small number of points where they had some mutual understanding. However, over here in the opposition, we have already seen what is going on, and Canadians outside this place can see it too.

The NDP and the Liberals will not dare to call themselves a coalition, but the whole time they have behaved like they are a majority government in Parliament. Back in the spring, it did not take long for them to bring forward a motion to push through government bills. The most shocking part of it might have been that it allowed a minister to move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until we would resume months later in September. Such a motion would be decided immediately without debate or amendment.

From early in May, the opposition was left waiting to see if the government would suddenly shut down Parliament for months. It was a strange thing to give the government such power if there was never actually a chance or need for it to be used.

At the same time, the motion also allowed the government to change the parliamentary schedule and give next to no notice. A minister could rise a minute before adjournment and declare we are sitting until midnight on a government bill. This introduced a lot of uncertainty into the whole process, not just for members but for parliamentary staff like our interpreters, who have had to work throughout these proceedings.

The Liberals and the NDP would have to explain to me the practicality of a lot of this happening without them working so closely together to coordinate the agenda and prepare for any last-minute changes. It would be exactly like if they were all part of a government trying to keep the opposition on its toes and undermine our important work. As we have heard from the government so often, it made it seem like this was only temporary and that it expired before the summer break. Then we all came back and it seems to be happening all over again.

First, the Liberals and the NDP used a special motion to rush Bill C-31 through the House with late-night debates and committee meetings. The result is more inflationary spending, which might fulfill part of their political agreement but is not the right solution for what Canadians are going through and asking for at this moment in time. However, that was not enough for the coalition. Last week, it passed another motion similar to the one it used before the summer, so now it can play games with the opposition again until the end of June.

It is a clear pattern. It is even more troubling to see it come from a party that is supposed to be in opposition and still officially pretends it is. Instead, it is enabling the Liberals to avoid accountability as a minority Parliament. That is what they are doing again with Bill C-32 today. However, none of this will stop us Conservatives from doing our jobs and doing our best to stand up against the desperate decisions of a government in decline.

Right now there is a cost of living crisis caused by inflation and interest rates, and they are failing to address it. The cost of groceries went up at the fastest pace in 40 years, and people have had to pay the highest gas prices ever. While Canadians are forced to cut back on spending, we are not seeing the government show fiscal restraint or provide tax relief. Instead, it continues to waste taxpayer dollars and weaken the foundation of our economy, especially by attacking our energy sector.

With that in mind, it is ironic to read this part of the economic update:

There is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. We have the most talented and resilient workforce in the world, and we are a country that skilled workers want to move to. We have the key resources the global economy needs, and as we enter an era of friendshoring and our closest partners shift their strategic reliance from dictatorships to democracies, they are looking to Canada to provide them with those resources.

It is the last part of that statement that I find the most interesting. The government, from day one, has spent the last seven years attacking the development and growth of our natural resources sector here in Canada. During that entire time, the Conservatives have defended Canada's great potential to supply the world's needs, while our industry follows higher standards for respecting human rights and the environment. We keep saying it and the government ignores it time and time again. Even now, I doubt it really even cares to get it.

The sad reality is that the government is hurting the same sector that would strengthen our economy and support our allies all over the world. We have already seen that the federal government's past decisions have limited Canada's ability to help Europe as much as we otherwise could have during an energy crisis, but what is worse is that the government still does not have the willingness to rise to the occasion with Canadian energy. We saw that when the German Chancellor personally came here on a special trip and the Prime Minister gave him a disappointing response. The Chancellor came here looking for Canadian LNG to help wean Germany off its dependency on Russia, and he was told “no”.

The Liberals are not going to reverse their anti-energy policies, which they will continue to expand. One of the new and subtle ways they are doing this is through a shares tax. They are not saying it openly, of course, but the industry has raised it as a concern. What is even more telling, though, is that opponents of the energy sector have also pointed to this tax as something that specifically targets Canadian oil and gas.

The likely result is that there will be damage done to Canadian jobs and industry more than anything else. It is also going to help drive carbon leakage into other areas run by dictators, like some of these overseas places we are importing oil from and other countries are dependent on when they should instead be focused on Canadian oil and gas. As usual, the Liberals pretend to go after big business, while their policies make life more expensive for all Canadians, including the most vulnerable. It is exactly the opposite of what is needed while facing economic hardship.

This is the same government that weakened our economy before it had to go through stressful events, and then decided to make it worse with wasteful spending. The Liberals' economic update proves that they have not learned much from their mistakes. As a case in point, the Liberals are going to raise the carbon tax, even though it has been a big part of the problem in terms of the cost of food and fuel. They say it is an environmental plan, but it is really nothing but a tax plan.

Along with that, the Liberals are failing to support workers and communities affected by their mandated coal transition. I represent some of these communities, alongside the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. Rockglen and Willow Bunch are such communities that are in my riding, and this year the environment commissioner's audit has shown that so far, the transition program is shaping up to leave these communities and their workforce behind. In fact, it goes so far as to say there is a complete lack of a plan, and that over the pandemic the Liberals have taken the last two years completely off, while not even allowing an extra two years in lieu for these communities to get their orders in line to be able to meet this transition from the government, but without the government's help.

There are a lot of talented people who are doing the best they can to prepare for this coming change, but again, as I just alluded to, there is still no planning and no attention from the government. These places still are not getting the answers they need for the future. When I look at the economic update, it still seems like this not a real priority for the Liberals, and that they will continue to break their promise to these coal communities.

These are the things we need to talk about while the government tries to shut down debate. These are things that should have been brought up in the fall economic update and have not been brought up, which is why we need this time to be debating this here today.

The Liberals are once again missing an opportunity, and they will continue to use the same kinds of decisions that brought us here, to where we are, where they limit debate along with the help of the NDP, and Canadians cannot afford it anymore.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her support of Bill C-32. I was not on the opposition benches at time to which she is referring. As a member and as a minister, I can say that I talked to Brad in my riding this week, who thanked us for making sure we got Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 done so quickly, because he wanted and needs the $500 housing support in that legislation. On the weekend, I talked to Mike and Laurie, who thanked us for our child care supports. They said to me at the All is Bright festival, “It's making a real difference, and we're able to make it through this inflationary cycle.”

There are millions of other Canadians waiting for us to get to work, to get to committee and to get Bill C-32 passed so that the people who need the help the most can get those supports when they need them the most.

Dental Care

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour and privilege to stand on behalf of the Minister of Health today and thank and congratulate the member for Pontiac for her hard work and advocacy, particularly for Canadians living in rural communities across the country.

Indeed, with the royal assent to Bill C-31, over half a million kids will visit the dentist this and next year, kids who do not have dental insurance and otherwise would not have been able to visit the dentist. This is an affordability measure. This is a health care measure. This is how we take care of families on this side of the House. This will have positive impacts across this country, including for families right across the river in Pontiac.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to highlight the great news we received yesterday that Bill C-31 received royal assent. While the Conservatives opposed the bill, to prevent kids from receiving affordable dental care this year, the government stood up for Canadian families and put forward real solutions to make life more affordable. These are solutions, not slogans.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health highlight how the government is delivering on dental care for Canadian families and also for families in my riding?

Taxation

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, we absolutely recognize that times are really challenging for a lot of Canadian families. We do believe that a compassionate approach is the right one.

That is why I was really glad to share with the House today the good news that Bill C-31 received royal assent. That means cheques for $500 are going to go to nearly two million Canadian families to help them pay the rent. It means that no family in Canada with a kid under 12 is going to have to choose—

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, our government absolutely believes in compassion, and that is why I was happy to share, at the beginning of this question period, the good news that Bill C-31 has received royal assent. Struggling families will get $500 to pay their rent, and kids under 12 across the country will be able to go to the dentist.

However, I also want to underscore for Canadians listening that our approach is fiscally responsible. Our AAA rating has been reaffirmed by Moody's with a stable outlook. We have the lowest deficit and the lowest debt-to-GDP—

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am very aware of the difficulties that many Canadians are currently facing in terms of affordability. That is why I am so pleased to be able to share some good news today. Yesterday evening, Bill C-31 received royal assent. That will have specific and important effects for Canadians and the less fortunate.

Natural Resources

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, today is Friday, so I want to start with some very good news for hard-working Canadian families. Last night, Bill C-31 received royal assent.

That is good news, because it means Canadians struggling to pay their rent will soon be getting cheques for $500. That is real help. It also means Canadian kids under 12 will be able to go to the dentist.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Bill C-32, the fall economic statement and its implementation. It is critical to address this kind of issue. It is critical to the constituents I represent in Parkdale—High Park in terms of the cost of living crisis that so many Canadians are facing and in terms of addressing affordability.

I am happy to highlight, in the context of this intervention, what we are doing and what we are proposing to do as a government. Let me start with students. I feel that I am not that far removed from my student years, although it has been almost 30 years. I remember those days fondly. What I did not have to deal with then that students have to deal with now is really crippling debt with skyrocketing tuition rates and the debt loads that young people are taking on.

We want people to be considering post-secondary education. We want them to be advancing themselves and their careers through higher education. During COVID we implemented a new relaxation on the interest being charged on federal student loans. With the fall economic statement, we are entrenching permanently the position that we took during COVID on a go-forward basis to eliminate interest on the federal portion of student loans.

The caveat here is that not every province is following suit with their provincial counterparts. As a proud representative from Toronto, I urge the provincial government in Ontario to follow suit as six other provinces have. This would ensure that the provincial portion in my native province also eliminates interest so that we can render more fairness for these young people.

The next subject area I will to turn to is housing. Housing is something we hear about all the time and rightfully so. Housing has become difficult in terms of attaining housing on a purchase model for people who would like to own property. It has become difficult for people who want to rent in this country. It is difficult on a number of fronts.

Colleagues know the actions we have taken as a government, but more needs to be done. The national housing strategy was an important initial step in 2017. We have supplemented that with continuing contributions to the housing portfolio.

What we are doing in this fall economic statement is fourfold. The first thing we are doing is ensuring that a new tax-free first homes savings account is permitted to be opened. This will operate much like a TFSA. This would allow a young person or a young couple to save as much as $40,000 in savings, tax free, to contribute to the purchase of that first home. That is an important step.

A few years ago, we also implemented something called the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. The fall economic statement proposes to double that amount to reflect the fact that housing prices have gone up. We appreciate that people need more of a credit to take that initial step to purchase their first home.

On a third front, what we are doing with respect to house flipping is really critical. We have heard about the commodification of the housing industry. We have heard about people using it as a speculative sort of exercise. The proposal contained in the fall economic statement is to tax the profits as business income for those who would sell a property within 12 months of having purchased it, preventing them from taking the capital gains exemption that is otherwise available to them. That is really critical because we want to ease that speculation in the housing market, not encourage it.

The last piece is also critical for those who want multi-generational housing. This is common in some parts of the country and some parts of the Canadian mosaic. We are trying to facilitate seniors to age at home. For example, for people who might want to have elderly parents live in their homes, possibly having three generations within the same dwelling, the renovation tax credit is being expanded through the multi-generational home renovation tax credit.

It does not stop with those who own homes. What we are doing for renters is very significant. Recently we topped up the Canada housing benefit, which was implemented through a proposal that I believe received royal assent yesterday. That was a $500 top-up. It is unfortunate that not all parties were onside in terms of supporting Bill C-31, which implemented this increase of $500 to the Canada housing benefit. It targets low-income Canadians who are renting in this current financial environment. Approximately 1.8 million people renting in this country will be affected by this one change, which is direct assistance during difficult economic times to help with the cost of housing.

On the broader piece of affordability, I want to highlight two other key facets. The first is the GST rebate, which I believe is in Bill C-30, if memory serves. Thankfully, there was a lot of consent in the chamber for doubling it for the next six months. That affects 11 million Canadians. That is a very significant form of assistance in difficult economic times.

The second is the dental benefit, which will be up to $1,300, in Bill C-31, which I believe received royal assent just yesterday. That will enable children under the age of 12 in low-income families to get much-needed dental care. I will salute the approach that has been mooted in the chamber by various parties about expanding the concept of health care to include dental care. That is a step in the right direction. That is a step we need to take and are taking as a government. This is really critical.

Another point I want to add, if I can open a parenthesis, is that it is critical for people to understand, including Canadians watching right now, in dealing with the rising impacts of inflation, they should note how many government benefits that are currently part of our social safety net are indexed to inflation. They are multiple. The Canada child benefit, the GST credit, CPP benefits, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and even the federal minimum wage are all tied to and indexed to inflation. We do not want to see inflation rise any further, but if it does, the benefits will also have a concomitant increase. That is very important to give people peace of mind about what their benefits will be assisting them with as we deal with difficult issues about the cost of living.

I want to touch on what we are doing for workers. We are working hard to assist workers directly. The fall economic statement would enhance the Canada workers benefit, which we have implemented. For those who are not familiar with it, there used to be disincentives for people coming off of assistance and taking low-paying work. We did not want to disincentivize people from leaving government assistance and entering the workforce.

The Canada workers benefit creates a top-up for those people who are in that particular situation, so they are encouraged to enter the workforce rather than discouraged. With this change, we are not providing that benefit annually, but on a quarterly basis, so those benefits will be in people's bank accounts more frequently, which helps them deal with the cost of living on a more direct and frequent basis. This one change has the potential to affect as many as 4.2 million workers.

We are also talking about a sustainable jobs training centre. This dovetails exactly with something we have heard a lot about over the past four to five years in the chamber, which is the notion of a just transition. How do we transition good, unionized work from different sectors into good, unionized, high-paying jobs in new, sustainable clean tech sectors? We do that through harnessing the power of unions and also through harnessing the powers of a sustainable economy. The sustainable jobs training centre would do just that. That is part of the fall economic statement.

We are also addressing fairness for workers directly by taxing share buybacks. This is important because, as the Minister of Finance outlined when she announced the fall economic statement, what we want to do is encourage businesses to not hold on to their wealth, to not pay for dividends to shareholders, but rather to reinvest in their businesses, including through R and D, which would empower the workers themselves. That is a critical feature, and that is what we are doing in this fall economic statement.

Another component is addressing fairness for small and medium enterprises. I am proud to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Small Business. Insofar as we addressed the small businesses stakeholders around the country, we heard repeatedly from entities about the prohibitive costs of credit card transactions, which only escalated during the pandemic as people turned to cashless methods of payment.

The charges that are part of the credit interchange fee structures are proving to be more and more prohibitive on small business owners. What we have committed quite openly in the fall economic statement is that we will doggedly pursue a negotiated agreement with financial institutions to reduce those fees. If those negotiations prove futile or unsuccessful, we have made a public statement in the chamber and through the fall economic statement that we will actually legislate in this area to bring down those fees. That would have a direct impact on small and medium businesses.

On this point, I want to read some of the reaction we have heard. The Convenience Industry Council of Canada has said, “CICC is pleased that the government has responded to our calls for action and has acknowledged the impact that credit card fees are having on convenience stores across the country.” They also said that Canadian convenience stores “have reached a tipping point & we need the feds to act NOW.”

That is exactly what we are doing. We are responding to this. When one responds to the needs of small business owners, one also responds to the people who use small businesses, the consumers who are facing escalating costs because credit card transaction fees are passed on to them.

That is part of what we are doing in the fall economic statement. It is critical to address the cost of living needs of Canadians, my constituents of Parkdale—High Park, the constituents of every member in this chamber. That is why I will be voting in support of the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, and I encourage every member of this chamber to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In his speech and during questions and comments, the student loan measure was mentioned. The Bloc Québécois supports this measure because we see that it will help students in the rest of Canada.

However, I would like to remind my colleague that Quebec is not part of that program because it already has its own loans and bursaries program that works well. An agreement with Ottawa gives Quebec the right to automatically withdraw with full compensation, which we are pleased about.

With regard to the dental insurance set out in Bill C-31, however, it is important to note that Quebec already has its own dental insurance program for children aged 10 and under. We thought that the programs would be harmonized with, for example, funding to extend coverage to children up to the age of 12, especially since Quebec's program is a real program that works well.

However, there is absolutely nothing about that or about a right to withdraw with compensation. To make matters worse, the government has imposed a super gag order to prevent the bill from being examined in committee. That means no amendments can be proposed.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise in this place, and especially so when it comes to important decisions around helping Canadians get through these times of inflationary pressure, with a housing crisis and a health care system in chaos. Today we are debating the implementation of items included in the fall economic statement, which the Minister of Finance produced a couple of weeks ago.

The NDP is always focused on helping Canadians. That is why we were happy to see NDP initiatives that are clearly designed to do just that, help Canadians who need the support the most, included in that fall economic statement. There are initiatives like providing dental care for kids who do not have access to a dental plan now, like doubling the GST rebate for low-income Canadians to help them deal with the rising costs of food and gas, and like providing a $500 boost for low-income renters so they can afford to keep a roof over their heads. I would like to point out that the dental care provisions in the fall statement are not in Bill C-32, which we are discussing today, but were in Bill C-31, which received royal assent yesterday, so that was a great day for Canadians.

I am also happy to find a couple of paragraphs in the statement about credit card transaction fees, an issue that the NDP has been raising for decades. Jack Layton brought this up time and again. Canadian small business owners pay some of the highest credit card transaction fees in the world, and in this world of online shopping, the fees make it even more difficult for them to compete for Canadians' shopping dollars.

As the NDP critic for small business, I have talked with executives from Visa, Mastercard, Moneris and other companies involved in these transactions. I know it is a complex issue and that these fees vary with the business volume and the credit card type, but the fact remains that small business owners pay the highest rates, and these are the highest rates in the world. These are the business owners who can least afford those high fees. Now consumers are concerned because business owners have been given the okay to pass these fees on to consumers.

I was happy to see a pledge in the fall economic statement that the government will move forward on regulating credit card transaction fees if negotiations with the industry do not bear fruit. The NDP will be watching this issue with great interest because we want to make sure this actually happens. We want to make sure that real, concrete action is taken to ease the pressure on Canadian businesses and consumers.

I want to spend the rest of my time discussing some items that were not included in the fall economic statement and therefore are not in Bill C-32. They are items that I was hoping would be there as they would have helped Canadians this winter before we get another update in the spring budget.

There was something in the fall economic statement about eliminating the interest on federal student loans, which is something again that the NDP has been calling for. However, there was nothing for one of the most blatant aspects of student underfunding in Canada. That is the scholarships given to graduate students who are working full time on their research. These federal scholarship amounts provided by the three funding councils have remained unchanged since 2003. That is almost 20 years ago, when housing costs were a fraction of what they are now. Master's students now work full time on their research for the princely annual salary of $17,500. Ph.D. students work full time for $21,000. Regular Canadians would have a very difficult time surviving on those wages, but these students have to pay thousands of dollars in tuition on top of that as well. This is below minimum wage. We are forcing our best and brightest to live in poverty.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research recommended in a recent report that the government increase these scholarship levels to rectify the situation. I also sponsored an e-petition, e-4098, organized by scientists across the country and signed by thousands of Canadians, that asked for a 48% increase in the value of those scholarships to match inflation over the past 20 years. The petition also asked that the number of scholarships be increased by 50% to match the demand for graduate students across the country.

Once students get their Ph.D.s, they must compete to get post-doctoral fellowships. It is an essential part of the career track of young scientists. Last year, 840 master's students received scholarships, and 750 received Ph.D. scholarships, but only 150 post-doctoral fellowships were provided. The petition mentioned above asked that the number of post-doctoral fellowships be doubled so that we can keep these students in Canada.

We are forcing young researchers to leave the country to continue their education. These are students we have educated here in Canada since they were in kindergarten. The numbers tell the story: 38% of graduates leave Canada to do their postgraduate work. They go to the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia. They go to a host of other countries that know the future of their economies relies on innovation and well-educated workers.

The negative impact of this neglect of young researchers on the Canadian economy is incalculable, but even the lost cost of that training is estimated to be about $640 million every year. I was disappointed that this issue was not dealt with in the fall economic statement, but I can assure the House that I will keep up the pressure on the government to ensure that it is fixed in next year's budget.

Another issue that was not dealt with in the statement was the automatically escalating alcohol excise tax. This tax will increase by over 6% in the coming months because of the high inflation rate. Distilleries, breweries and wineries, which are already facing the rising costs of packaging and production, will have to swallow that increase in their costs to consumers. These are costs that are not faced by their foreign competition.

My riding makes the best wine in the country. My hometown is the epicentre of craft brewing in Canada, and there are more craft distilleries in my riding every year. However, these small businesses, which are an important and growing part of the economy in my riding, now face this increase of costs that was never part of their business plans.

I have talked to representatives from these distilleries, breweries and wineries, and they have practical solutions for this problem. They have no objection to paying the excise tax, but they want to make sure it is fair compared to what their international competitors pay.

The United States has a system whereby smaller producers pay a smaller rate of tax for distillers and breweries. Other wine-producing countries support their industries in ways that are trade legal. Canada came up with a similar support for our wine industry, but it is set to expire next year after only 18 months. This program needs to be extended to 2030, at least, to make sure our industry, especially the smaller producers, can continue to thrive.

Most Canadians are struggling to get by these days, but wealthy Canadians and many big corporations are making record amounts of money. Oil and gas companies are making record profits based on the windfall of world oil prices caused by international events. Big grocery stores are making record profits, even as many Canadians are forced to cut back on their food purchases.

The Liberal government could have instituted a windfall tax on these excess profits, which could have generated billions of dollars in revenue to really support the Canadians who need it most. Even the Conservative government in the United Kingdom is taxing these windfall profits. In fact, it just raised that windfall tax from 25% to 35% yesterday. The CEO of Shell Canada literally told the federal government that their company should be taxed more.

Why is the CEO of Shell more progressive than the Liberal government, to say nothing of the Conservatives?

The fall economic statement included a modest increase in the tax rate for banks and other financial institutions, but totally ignored the big corporations that made the biggest profits in this difficult time for Canadians. I hope that, by the time the spring budget rolls around, the Liberal government will have found the courage to bring in windfall taxes to make sure that companies that are making record profits on the backs of Canadians pay their fair share.

In conclusion, I will be voting in favour of this bill. It brings several supports to Canadians that will truly help those who need it most, and it takes some hesitant steps toward a more sustainable future.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

Government Business No. 22 Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I will answer the question the Conservatives asked about having quorum in the House and it being in the Constitution. The unfortunate reality for the Conservative member who asked the question is that he should know that he has participated in unanimous consent motions in the House to waive that provision in the past. He has already set the precedent himself, so has the Conservative Party and, as a matter of fact, every single person in the House has set the precedent to waive the requirements for quorum.

We cannot be selective as to when we want to interpret the Constitution to our benefit, which is what the Conservatives are trying to do now. The reality is that there has been a long-standing precedent to waive the requirement for quorum under certain conditions, and that is exactly what we are seeing in this motion. There is the same consistency that comes with that.

However, I think what we really have to do with this motion is get to the heart of what is going on. At the heart is the Conservatives' partisan interest and allowing that to supersede the needs of Canadians. That is exactly what is going on here, and I will demonstrate in my speech today how they have routinely done that, not over the last seven years of my being in the House and watching it, although they have done it over the seven years, but five examples just in this fall session alone when they have done that. They have done it on multiple occasions using multiple different tools.

Any individual who has participated in or is well versed in how the Westminster parliamentary system works knows that the one tool the opposition has is to delay. That is its sole tool, and it is important for the opposition to exercise the use of that tool when it can to garner support, or whatever it might be, when they find those issues to be so important. When the opposition feels the issue is the hill it will die on, it will fight, delay and filibuster if it has to, because it feels something is not right.

That is the main tool opposition parties have in a parliamentary system like this. The problem is that Conservatives are using it all the time. They are using that tool for everything. They are saying absolutely every piece of legislation that comes before the House is a hill they will die on, and the problem is that this diminishes the value of the tool they have. It also affects directly, and this is what I do not understand, their credibility on the issue. When they stand up to delay things they are fully in support of, do they not understand that the public sees that? They are doing the same thing, and their partisan interest in seeing the government fail is more important to them than actually providing supports for Canadians.

Let us review some of the legislation from this fall alone. With Bill C-29, the truth and reconciliation bill, the Conservative Party blocked a motion to sit late to try to pass the bill at second reading before the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is what the government, and I think all Canadians, would have loved to have seen. It was not until pressure was mounted on them by the public that they backed down from that position.

Another one was Bill C-30, the GST tax credit. This is a bill that needed to be passed in a timely manner to get real supports to Canadians. They were real supports for Canadians that needed to be done in a timely fashion to line up with when the GST payments were made. The Conservatives, again, blocked a motion to sit late on the second reading of that important piece of legislation. They only backed down again and changed their minds on how they would vote on that particular piece of legislation based on public criticism and the public holding them accountable for playing the games they are playing. That is the reality of what we are seeing.

Bill C-31 is the bill that afforded very important measures regarding dental care and housing supports. The Conservative Party, again, blocked the adoption of the legislation to help the most vulnerable, forcing the government, with the help of the NDP, to have a programming motion to get it passed, and this is what we see time after time.

The next is Bill C-9, which would amend the Judges Act, and I will remind members this is all happened during this fall session alone.

We had technical issues with interpretation with that bill. The Conservatives are always standing up and using the interpreters as one of their arguments for making sure we have the best quality of debate in the House. When there was a problem with interpretation, which delayed the debate of the bill, the Conservatives refused to support a motion to add time to the debate that day.

The Conservatives say that they want more time to debate. We literally said that we lost 30 minutes of time because of a problem and we had to temporarily suspend, so how about we add that 30 minutes onto the end of the day. The Conservatives said no. This is the group that is now sitting before us saying that they are in favour of doing absolutely everything to increase democracy and that they want more speakers on every issue.

The one glaring example of this happening in this fall session was with Bill S-5. The bill is on environmental protections, and it is a bill everybody in the House supported. It was unanimously adopted. Conservatives put up 27 speakers on it. I want to provide a comparison for those who might be watching. Compared to that number, Liberals put up six speakers, the NDP put up four speakers, the Bloc put up five speakers and the Green Party put up one speaker.

What is even more telling is that, if someone goes back to look at Hansard or watch the videos—

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is 100% right. We have to think that when we block and delay legislation, we are blocking and delaying critical support to Canadians who need it.

Let us think of housing right now. When the party opposite talks about people who are struggling and need support, and then it obstructs and blocks legislation in this House that can give them support and relief, that is unacceptable. That is exactly what we saw on the bill on dental and housing, Bill C-31. Committees we can move to the next day, but support cannot wait.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Madam Speaker, my question is somewhat related to Bill C‑32.

I would like to talk about Bill C‑31, because I have never had the opportunity to ask my NDP friends a question about something that puzzles me. Bill C‑32 contains some mini-measures on housing, but they do not really address the housing crisis.

There is an important measure in Bill C‑31, a $500 cheque to help people. I have spoken to every housing agency in Quebec and they were just about beside themselves when it came to Bill C‑31, which hands out so much money without building a single thing.

People had expectations about the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. They thought that the NDP would be able to push the government to build housing. Does it not seem to my colleague that the NDP members sold their souls for a bowl of lentils with their agreement with the Liberals?

Taxation

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, as the Canadian economy faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenge of high inflation and higher interest rates, our government understands that many Canadians are worried. They are certainly not relieved by the speech they just heard, but it is important to remember that inflation is a global phenomenon. It is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic.

Despite the Conservative leader's continued attempts to minimize the effects of the war in Ukraine, inflation has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and by the supply chain challenges that are affecting people and businesses, frankly, right around the world. Fortunately, there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Indeed, Canada has the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year, and we have maintained our position as the G7 country with the lowest net debt and deficit-to-GDP ratios. Our country has a AAA credit rating, a recognition of our strong fiscal position. Canada also has an unemployment rate near its record low, as 500,000 more Canadians are working today than were before the pandemic.

While Canada's inflation rate is less severe, at 6.9%, than that of many of our peers, like the United States, at 7.7%, the United Kingdom, at 10.1%, and Germany, at 10.4%, we appreciate that this will continue to be a difficult time for many Canadians. That is why we are moving forward with our affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. It is already putting more money back into the pockets of the most vulnerable Canadians and those who need it the most. While the Conservatives continue to oppose these compassionate measures, we will continue to be there for Canadians with support that has been carefully designed to avoid making inflation worse.

For example, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support earlier this month. Despite Conservative efforts to oppose and block our compassionate plan, with Bill C-31, we are proposing to create the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 and families with annual incomes under $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. Following the fall economic statement, we are also moving forward with Bill C-32 to make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans permanently interest free, including those currently being repaid.

Canadians can count on our government to continue running a tight fiscal ship. I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that all of these support measures are targeted, fiscally responsible and continue to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio.

When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting money back into the pockets of most Canadians. I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that unfortunately climate action is no longer a theoretically political debate. It is an economic necessity.

Canadians all know that the Conservatives do not have a serious plan to tackle climate change, which means they also do not have a plan to grow the Canadian economy. Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing that climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. Our plan makes life more affordable, grows the economy, fights climate change and puts Canada in a great position to benefit from the growing global opportunity that is clean growth and from the creation of hundreds of thousands of good-paying, sustainable jobs.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today, but for me to be truly enthusiastic, I would have had to see something new in the economic update. There really was not much there. As my colleague from La Prairie said earlier, it merely dusts off and updates some old legislation. It is an implementation act and a very long document, but there is not much in terms of real content.

There is one new aspect, though. Once again, as my colleague mentioned earlier, we are doing something we did not do last March when the budget was presented. We are talking about inflation more than anything else. The word “inflation” appears in the document roughly 110 times and is referred to ad nauseam. There is also the prospect of a recession now and, for the first time, the document includes an official forecast of a slowdown for two consecutive quarters. This is an extremely important observation. We are talking about inflation and we are anticipating a recession.

As my colleague from La Prairie said, the situation is such that we are being told that inflation is very serious, and the Prime Minister is doing what he likes to do when he goes on a trip to India: He dresses up as a sorcerer, a magician or whatever, and thinks that repeating it 10, 20, 50, 100 or 120 times will make the problem disappear. However, the people struggling with inflation every day in their homes do realize that 80% of all the money announced and spent in this budget update had already been announced either in Bill C-30 or Bill C-31, or still in the last budget or one-off announcements. That is why there is almost nothing in there.

Part of what is new is that it provides for workers to access certain benefits, to which they are already entitled, a bit sooner. People in Saint-Colomban, Saint-Joseph-du-Lac or Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines who are facing inflation and are afraid of losing their jobs will look at this and surely see that it is largely a rehash.

What should have been proposed? The last election campaign was my first. One of the highlights of the campaign was when the Liberal Party went to the public for ideas. The Liberals called the election even though they did not know what to do. They did not even have a platform. They went door to door and had nothing to say. One suggestion in their suggestion box could have been to fulfill the promise they made seven years ago, which was to make major reforms to the employment insurance system.

Workers are sometimes overcome by life's misfortunes. They may have to go through a recession and face COVID-19 while paying for groceries that now cost 10% more. Currently, not even one in two workers qualifies for EI even though they have paid into the system every paycheque, and their employer has paid into the system every paycheque. The government must reform the system. However, we know that a Liberal promise is basically only good for being torn up and thrown away, much like the motions we vote on in the House.

This government does not know how to listen. Even when it takes a step forward, it fails to implement its very own measures. The Bloc Québécois asked for 50 weeks of benefits for people with serious illnesses, such as cancer, who need treatment for long periods of time. If people are undergoing chemo and not applying for jobs, I think it is fair to say they are not trying to rob the system. The Liberals thought 26 weeks of benefits was fair. That measure was voted on in the House and is ready to roll out, but to this day, workers are not getting even one extra week because cabinet has not passed the order in council. It has been 18 months and still no order in council. That is the very definition of a lack of political will, a lack of empathy for people, a lack of respect for Parliament, a lack of consideration for members of the public, for Quebeckers, for Canadians, for workers and for sick people. The Liberals' appalling failure to take action on employment insurance is a manifestation of all those things.

I had hoped there would be something in the statement about climate change, at least. The energy transition is an opportunity to transform our economy, an opportunity to invest, innovate and export. We have to unlock that potential.

The Prime Minister could not even be bothered to go to COP27. He is known for his judgment, so he surely had something less important to do. He did not go to COP27. We said to ourselves that at least the Minister of Environment, who is a reasonable guy, would go to COP27. Since the Prime Minister was not going with him, the minister was lonely and said he would invite some friends. He called the Royal Bank of Canada, one of the largest financial backers of oil projects, western Canadians and oil people. It seems that there was partying going on in Egypt at the Canada pavilion. Oil spill shots were served, people were standing on tables at midnight or 1 a.m. and they sang O Canada after 3 a.m. It seems that the oil people and the environment minister were really partying.

Now, the minister is saying that it was very important to invite them because they have a role to play in the transition. My colleague from La Prairie would say that it is like inviting Dracula to a blood bank. Those are his words.

My grandfather, who was a very wise man, used to say, “Tell me what company you keep and I will tell you who you are”. Today, we know who the Liberals are, and it is reflected in the budget update. The Liberals tell us that they are supposedly going to eliminate subsidies to oil companies, which is not the case, because they are only eliminating some of them. One positive aspect, though, is flow-through shares.

However, the government is subsidising small modular nuclear reactors. These reactors are only being sent to Alberta and the north to be used at oil sands processing facilities to produce more oil.

Does anyone know of any person, city or street in Canada that needs a small nuclear power plant on a skateboard on a street corner? Does anyone think they are for domestic use? No, these are oil subsidies. That is what the government is shamelessly doing. I wonder how the Liberals wake up in the morning feeling good about themselves when they say one thing and do the opposite. I would have a hard time with that and would struggle to look in the mirror every morning even just to shave. Maybe that is why the environment minister has a beard. Perhaps he struggles to look in the mirror to shave.

There is nothing for health care. As the Minister of Health said, this is a futile debate, and the money is not important. He wants to pay his doctors with love and sunshine. I hope he has good genes. He says that funding is not important, because the provinces have money. This is the new strategy. The provinces have been helping people with inflation by sending cheques, so that means they have money.

We look at the budget statement, in which the Liberals claim that they will reduce the federal debt to GDP ratio from 45% to 37% in a few years. They tell us that they have the money.

The week when the Liberals told us that the provinces have too much money, they announce in their statement cheques to reimburse the goods and services tax. They announce measures, but the provinces do not have the right to do anything at all. Essentially, what the Liberals are telling us is not to spend any more money on education or child care, not to help our seniors any more, not to build any more roads, to give up on public transit and certainly not move into an energy transition because as soon as we spend one penny, we will be told that we should have invested in health. According to their argument, which is flawed and preposterous, we should close down schools to prove to them that we truly need money for health. It is plain to see how the federal government is part of the problem.

Ottawa has money to subsidize the oil companies. It has money for that. Today, it had money for a military intervention. It can give money to Asian countries to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, as announced today. There is money in Ottawa.

There is money to undermine our public dental plans for children. They have money for that. There is money for GST rebate cheques, to lower the second tax bracket for people who make $90,000, $100,000 and more. That is what they call the middle class because they assume that people cannot count. There is money for permanent facilities on Roxham Road for Liberal donor friends. They have money for that.

The Liberals need to stand up, show some backbone, meet with the health ministers and get the money out.

Government Business No. 22—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this debate on Motion No. 22 under Government Business. For those watching us, this motion may seem procedural and maybe even uninteresting. We are talking about procedure and rules. The public does not usually like that part and does not consider it a priority.

However, we are talking about democracy here. From what I see, and from what my entire caucus sees, the government is taking advantage of its alliance with the NDP to change the rules of the House.

Before, changing a rule required debate. There is a way to do this under the Standing Orders. Ever since the pandemic and the adoption of a hybrid Parliament, the government has not really been shy to propose changes to the Standing Orders to serve some interests more than others. Maybe we should talk about this and consider what the rules are for.

We have a good rule book that sets out the agreed-upon rules of the House that must be followed. Most importantly, these rules guarantee the exercise of a healthy democracy. In our Parliament, democracy is practised with a government in power and opposition parties that challenge it. I often say that the better the opposition, the better the bills and debates and, consequently, the better the government. A government that seeks to muzzle the opposition by changing the rules is a government that is basically depriving itself of the expertise of witnesses and parliamentarians to improve its bills.

The motion that we are talking about today essentially seeks to extend sitting hours late into the night. However, 10 days of intensive sitting days are already set out on the parliamentary calendar, depending on the needs of the government. When the government manages its legislative agenda properly, Standing Order 27(1) proposes a calendar that is negotiated among the leaders of each recognized party in the House at the beginning of the Parliament. The leaders agree on a calendar and establish the ground rules at the beginning of the Parliament. This standing order about the calendar was established in 1982, so the House agreed a long time ago that it would decide on a calendar in order to have more transparency and to exercise a healthy democracy. This means that we are well aware of the times when the government can intervene to extend the sitting hours.

I remember the government House leader lecturing the Bloc Québécois last June. Quebec's national holiday falls on June 24, but we begin our celebrations on June 23 and end them the evening of June 24. The Bloc Québécois had asked that we rise earlier, on June 23, so that members could return to their ridings to celebrate the national holiday. This elicited a strong reaction from the parliamentary secretary. He told us that it was ridiculous for the Bloc to dispute something that had been agreed to unanimously by all parties. He criticized us for revisiting a unanimous decision made by all parties. I could repeat that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, stated that we needed to be reasonable.

Today, I consider that the original calendar proposed at the beginning of the Parliament was the reasonable outcome of discussions, and it was adopted. Now, the government itself is brazenly revisiting it and is seizing the opportunity to change it, not just until Christmas but until June 23, 2023. We do not understand this. We are wondering what is happening. Why amend the calender up to June 23, 2023?

This motion circumvents Standing Order 26. According to the Standing Orders, if the government wants to extend sittings in addition to what is already provided for, it can move a motion. However, if five opposition members rise to object to the motion, that is one way for the opposition to play the parliamentary game and object to a government motion.

Today's motion circumvents that. It will no longer be possible for opposition members to rise and object to an extension of sitting hours.

I am sorry to have to say this, but I am surprised to see my NDP colleagues support this motion, insinuating that we will have more hours for debate, and then wonder why we oppose the motion. They also say it will not cause problems for parliamentary debate, which is totally false, and they know it.

Standing Order 106(4) enables members who sign a written request addressed to a parliamentary committee to discuss and debate a priority matter in committee.

At the beginning of this Parliament, we unanimously agreed that the opposition could not play around with this standing order. Everyone agreed, reasonably, that a request to call a committee meeting should be signed by different parties. In other words, if the official opposition wanted to call a committee meeting, it would need help from the NDP or the Bloc Québécois in order for the matter to be considered a priority in committee.

However, today's motion gets rid of that idea. It takes only one other House leader to extend the sitting hours. It seems to me that it would have been more transparent, beneficial or democratic to say that two leaders are required to change the sitting hours. Instead, only one leader is required. What is the motive behind all this? Again, I have a hard time understanding how my NDP colleagues could get on board.

By putting forward this motion, the government is seeking to limit, but not ban, the use of gag orders. There have been a lot of gag orders in the past year. I am guessing that the government is starting to get a bit embarrassed about needing to use gag orders to manage its agenda. The government has decided to bypass a few Standing Orders and do indirectly what it cannot do directly.

Let us be honest. Even if this motion is adopted, it will not stop the government from using closure motions, with the NDP's support.

What is motivating the government to table such a motion? We think the House and the committees are working very well. In the last year, 29 debatable bills have been introduced in the House. The House has passed 18 bills, 15 bills have received royal assent, six bills are currently in committee and five bills are at second reading. When I hear someone say that Parliament is not working, that sounds like nonsense to me.

On the face of it, the government would have us believe that Parliament is not working, when that is completely false. As I said, many bills have passed in the House and are either in the Senate or have received royal assent.

I did a little research. In 2015, the majority Liberal government passed 13 of the 37 bills it introduced in its first year in office. Clearly, the current minority government is performing better than the majority Liberal government did in its first year in office.

What is more, on October 5, the House adopted a motion by unanimous consent to extend the debate in order to pass Bill C‑31. This was possible because we negotiated, discussed and concluded ad hoc agreements. This allowed us to avoid a “supermotion”, which would effectively bulldoze the democratic process and would not be the fruit of the parliamentary discussions we should be having.

This leads us to question why the government wants to extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons when in fact it is reducing parliamentary debate. I think my colleagues are aware that the work done in committee and the studies they do, on bills and other issues, are very important to me. We know that the parliamentary work suffering the repercussions of the hybrid Parliament is the work done in parliamentary committee. I will give some examples.

This morning, a committee meeting with veterans was cancelled because a motion had been moved under Standing Order 106(4) at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The meeting with veterans was cancelled so that discussions and debates could be held at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We had to do this because we do not have enough interpreters or technical support staff to go around. This means the whips must agree on which committee will cancel its meeting.

As a whip, it was heartbreaking today to have to cancel a meeting with veterans, two days after the Remembrance Day celebrations, to give priority to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Every time a minister rises to ask for extended sitting hours, the whips will have to agree on which committee will have to be cancelled. It will not be just one committee because when we sit until midnight, we usually cancel two committees. Those two committees will not do their work, will not move forward and will have to cancel on witnesses they invited.

It seems as though this government has just accepted that it is now normal for committee meetings to be cancelled because of the limitations of the hybrid Parliament. I do not mind sitting until midnight. I do not see any problem with that, as long as no committee meetings are cancelled. However, I do not want anyone calling me lazy for not wanting to sit until midnight when I just want to make sure that committee meetings are held. Right now, the NDP and the government are consciously working to cancel committee meetings and limit their important work.

I would say that partisanship has trumped common sense. One cannot call for a better democracy and extended debates in the House while limiting important debate in committee without anyone noticing. On Thursday, we may sit late and we will have to determine which committee will be cancelled. The Board of Internal Economy is sitting one afternoon, and we will have to cancel yet another committee meeting. No one from the government or the NDP is talking about that situation.

I kept a close eye on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs' work on the subject of hybrid proceedings, and I was quite touched by all the talk of work-life balance. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons' very personal testimony about the importance of avoiding burnout, participating in family life and finding balance was moving. Now, however, he is an ardent proponent of extending sittings until midnight or 12:30 in the morning. Can someone explain to me how that squares with the importance of work-life balance? The NDP, despite its support for a hybrid Parliament, is doing the same thing. One of the main reasons the NDP is in favour of a hybrid Parliament is that it makes work-life balance possible, or so it says.

If I have kids and I work until 12:30 in the morning a few nights a week, I might find it challenging to collaborate and get work done. Obviously that will have repercussions on my family life.

What should be normal is having a climate of collaboration and discussion in the House, a climate that allows us to prioritize bills and agree on a legislative process. That process should focus on seeking a consensus or a majority, rather than having the agenda dictated by a government that will simply seek an alliance with the NDP. I do not understand my colleagues' lack of sensitivity on such a fundamental issue, and that goes for both the government members and the NDP.

What is more, we have yet to talk about the interpreters. As we know, there is a shortage of interpreters. Many were injured during the pandemic. Even now, interpreters are still being injured by acoustic shocks. We know that there is a shortage of interpreters, yet the government, with the complicity of the NDP, has decided to make the interpreters work until 12:30 a.m. under conditions that could lead to burnout.

I do not understand the position of the government and the NDP in this regard. They are not in such a hurry to move a motion that would make it mandatory for witnesses and MPs to wear headsets and require committee chairs to attend meetings in person. They are in less of a hurry to protect the health and safety of our interpreters than they are to muzzle the opposition in order to advance their legislative agenda.

Honestly, I am completely dumbfounded. Normally, I would say “appalled” because that word reflects my sadness at the government and NDP members' lack of sincerity and authenticity in the context in which we are debating, namely a hybrid Parliament with a shortage of interpreters and technical limitations. The Board of Internal Economy, of which I am a member, has spent countless hours talking about this dangerous situation for our interpreters, and yet I still feel as though, today, the government and the NPD are abandoning them and their health and safety. The government and the NDP are saying loud and clear that parliamentary committees do not play an important role in our overall work. That is sad.

Members will realize from the comments I have made that we will be voting against this motion. We are doing so not because we are not willing to work hard or sit until midnight, but because we object to the government's refusal to discuss or agree on a calendar with the opposition parties. The government is acting as though it has a majority. Quebeckers and Canadians voted in a minority government, and that requires that it work with the opposition.

Therefore, I am moving this amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle: that the amendment be amended, in paragraph (a), by adding, after the words “provided that”, the following: the House leader of a recognized party that supports the government's request also rise from their seat to orally and formally indicate their support to the House.

My amendment to the amendment demonstrates that transparency is important to the Bloc Québécois.

Fall Economic Statement

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for his question. I am fortunate to serve with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. I can say that we often work very collaboratively together, and it is a pleasure to work with him.

On the housing issue, the fundamental problem is supply. There is not enough housing, that is, not enough houses and condos to meet the needs of the population. We need to build more. However, there is not enough capacity in the construction sector to meet the needs and to ensure acceptable equilibrium prices. Obviously, the solution to ensure that the price remains affordable is to have properly funded social housing. The cost of rent should not exceed 30% of people's income.

Yes, there are some exceptions, but this government is basically just funding affordable housing, which is a catch-all concept. It needs to start funding social housing again. Under Bill C-31, most people living in social housing in Quebec will not receive any assistance. This is unacceptable and should have been changed in committee, but this government refused to do so.

Veterans Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about the important issue of homelessness among veterans.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who is doing a wonderful job on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He worked on the report and the recommendations. What a shame it is that most of the report's recommendations have yet to be implemented. It is a real shame.

I will approach this issue from another direction. When we talk about homelessness, it is difficult not to talk about housing. Ultimately, what we want is to get people off the streets and into a home. We want to give them a roof over their heads. Unfortunately, it is clear that we are not taking care of our own in Canada and Quebec.

I am pleased to rise so close to Remembrance Day. Today is an excellent day to talk about this issue. I would also like to pay tribute to certain people.

In my riding, an entire ecosystem of assistance for people experiencing homelessness has sprung up in recent years. It is amazing. Take the Halte du coin, for example. My friend Nicholas Gildersleeve launched this initiative during the pandemic.

During the pandemic, it became clear that there were Montrealers who were fleeing the city for the area around the Longueuil metro station for reasons that appear to be pandemic related. They believed that there was a serious outbreak in Montreal. They were leaving Montreal and congregating around the Longueuil metro station. There was a risk of a major outbreak and a possibility that the virus would spread outside the community of Longueuil.

The people who work with the homeless and are involved in housing issues immediately sprang into action. Gilles Beauregard of Table Itinérance Rive-Sud did an incredible job. Everyone banded together as part of an ecosystem that cares for people. I should also mention Marlène Harvey of La Casa Bernard-Hubert, a men's shelter that offers six-month stays, and Sonia Langlois, who is doing a fantastic job with L'Antre-temps, a shelter for homeless youth between the ages of 16 and 21. When we think of homelessness, we often picture older people. There are older people experiencing homelessness, and that is a problem. Unfortunately, young people also end up on the street. They run away from home, they get placed in foster care, they run away and end up in the street, and there are organizations devoted to helping them.

I would like to give a shout-out to Lucie Latulippe at L'Abri de la Rive-Sud and to Chrismène Joseph at the Centre de support médical et d'assistance sociale de Longueuil. These are people that I know and love.

I went to the Halte du coin, which is a resource with a high social acceptability threshold; in other words, they accept everyone. It is accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week. People come in and no one asks questions. Meals are served during the day. I went to help serve the meal and wash dishes one day, and I saw something that I found deeply troubling. People can come to eat, 50 meals are served, but, unfortunately, there is not enough room. This problem is related to what we are talking about today. There is not enough funding to deal with homelessness. We are not helping people enough.

The resource has 20 beds in the summer and 30 in the winter. Winter is coming and it is a serious problem.

They serve 50 meals without any issue; 50 people show up and are fed. It happens in a former church that has been turned into a support centre for the homeless. That is quite remarkable. It is a wonderful resource. However, there is not enough room for everyone. There is not enough room to house everyone. There are around 50 seats at suppertime. After the meal, the people leave, go outside, smoke a cigarette or a joint. As we know, homelessness can be related to drug use. After the meal, the space is turned into a place to sleep. The tables are replaced by beds.

When I left the resource, everyone was there outside, about 50 of them. Unfortunately, not all of them would be able to get in. They were all waiting to spend the night in a warm bed, but there is not enough room. We are not providing a place to sleep for our own. We do not care for our homeless veterans in this country. That is a big problem.

Ultimately, the way to address the issue of homelessness is through housing. That is also noted in the report. Unfortunately, Canada is failing in its duty to house its citizens. The system is not working at all in Canada.

The national housing strategy was launched five years ago with much fanfare. The goal was to spend $72 billion. We were told that people would be housed. When the Liberals talk about the great $72‑billion strategy, they never mention the fact that it includes the money that cities, provinces and organizations will invest. It is not all federal money.

Five years on, Scotiabank estimates that Canada has a shortfall of 3.5 million housing units. Moreover, Canada has the lowest number of housing units per 1,000 people of all G7 nations. That is scandalous. We saw this week that Canada is one of the worst countries in the G20 in terms of fossil fuel investments, which is a downright scandal. All the Liberal ministers keep going on and on about the sustainable economy and the ecological transition, yet Canada is the second-worst country in the G20 in terms of public investments in fossil fuels. That in itself is shameful.

Canada's record on housing is also shameful. There are 424 housing units per 1,000 residents. Canada is the worst country in the G7. That is appalling. Last week, we discussed Bill C-31. My Liberal and NDP friends think they are resolving the housing crisis with Bill C‑31. People are being sent a cheque for $500. How much will be required next year?

Not a single housing unit will be built with Bill C‑31. Two weeks ago, during the Nuit des sans-abri, an event that raises awareness of homelessness, I met with friends who work with the homeless in Longueuil. When I talked to them about Bill C‑31, they were devastated. How many millions will be spent under Bill C‑31 without a single home being built?

We need to build homes. According to a study by Scotiabank, 3.5 million housing units must be built over the next 10 years in Canada to meet the demand. Midway through the national housing strategy, 350,000 units have been built and 60,000 been renovated. That adds up to about 100,000. Can we call that a roaring success? No, it is a total failure.

That is not to mention the other problem we have right now. There is a need to build more social housing, more housing that people can afford, and that is the important part. However, last month, a problem arose, a problem associated with the pandemic, rising construction costs and the labour shortage. Projects funded by the government will not be able to move ahead due to a lack of refinancing.

It is easy to understand. Some projects that were funded under the rapid housing initiative or the national housing co-investment fund a year or two ago will not move ahead a year later due to rising costs and the labour shortage.

Once the builders break ground on a project, it becomes clear that, to complete the 55 or 70 units, another $1 million or $2 million is needed. It is a serious problem. These are good projects funded by the government that will not see the light of day. There are many of these projects in Quebec and it is outrageous that we do not talk about it.

Furthermore, midway into the strategy, while the government keeps boasting about spending money, only 30% of the funds have been spent. I said earlier that there is a shortfall of 3.5 million housing units in Canada. An economist at the CMHC told me a few weeks ago that, in Quebec alone, if the market is left on its own, 500,000 units will be built. The market alone will build 500,000 units, but 1.1 million would be needed to meet the needs of Quebec alone. That means we need 600,000 more. One way or another, the government must help. It must intervene in the market to build those 600,000 units, but that is not happening.

That is not all. Over the last 10 years, according to my friends at the Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation, Canada has lost 600,000 affordable housing units, units that middle‑class people could afford. Those units are now being sold on the private market and have become unaffordable for the average person.

Not only is new housing not being built, but the units we helped build, units that were affordable or that the market built over the years, are no longer affordable for average folks. There is a lot of work to do.

Taxation

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue of inflation. The elevated inflation experienced now in Canada and, frankly, the rest of the world is a major issue for all Canadians.

We do understand that Canadians continue to experience higher costs of living and that many are struggling to make ends meet. However, it is important to remember that inflation is a global phenomenon. It is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic, which has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and by the snarled supply chains that are affecting people and businesses around the world.

While Canada's inflation rate of 6.9% is less severe than that of many of our peers, like the United States at 8.2%, the United Kingdom at 10.1%, and Germany at 10%, we appreciate that this will continue to be a difficult time for a lot of Canadians. While it is not a made-in-Canada problem, we do have a made-in-Canada solution to help those who need it the most.

We are moving forward with our affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. For example, now that Bill C-30 has received royal assent, individuals and families receiving the GST credit will receive additional support starting this week. With Bill C-31, we are proposing the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 in families with an annual income of under $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan.

I am confident the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can appreciate the positive impacts that our affordability measures are having on her constituents.

I would like to remind the House that all of these support measures are targeted and fiscally responsible. Now is not the time to pour unnecessary fuel on the flames of inflation.

When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we have moved forward with this system.

Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate. The reality is that it is an economic necessity. Most provinces have their own pollution pricing mechanisms. In the provinces where the federal backstop had to be applied, families get payments to offset the costs of the federal pollution pricing.

The reality is that most households are getting back more than they pay. Indeed, in the four provinces where the federal system applies, the climate action incentive payments mean that a family of four will receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, families in rural and small communities, like those living in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, are eligible to receive an extra 10%. This is putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians.

This is important work, but I want to also highlight that it is not the entire climate plan. It is one of the tools in the tool box. We are working hard on affordability and at the same time addressing climate change.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege to stand in the House tonight to address concerns from my colleague.

I remember back to about a year ago when the member ran for the Liberal Party and I knocked on doors with him. He ran on a commitment to price carbon, and it was welcomed at the doors, as it is welcomed across our country. Canadians know that pollution should not be free. Canadians know that things like cap and trade, a price on pollution and, indeed, carbon pricing are a necessary foundation in a proper environmental platform.

At the time, the member was also proud of that platform, so I am not sure where he is going with this, but I am indeed really proud of the fact that for seven years now, our government has been putting forward real solutions and measures to help middle-class Canadians and those who have worked so hard to join them.

We have introduced and implemented measures that have helped grow the economy. We have created jobs and we have created a fair and more level playing field for Canadians across the country. We understand that rising prices, which we are seeing around the world, are also affecting Canadians across the country. However, high inflation is a global phenomenon. It is not limited to us here in Canada. It is mostly caused by the war in Ukraine and various other supply chain disruptions.

While it is not a made-in-Canada problem, we have a made-in-Canada solution to help those who need it the most. For example, now that Bill C-30 has received royal assent, individuals and families receiving the GST credit will receive an additional $2.5 billion in support. Over 11 million households will receive a doubling of that GST credit in the coming weeks. Actually, I believe it is this Friday.

Also, with Bill C-31 we are proposing to create a Canada dental benefit for children under 12, which will deliver $1,300 over the next few years in supports so that families can pay for their kids to go and see a dentist. The bill also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program, which already provides up to $2,500 to Canada's most vulnerable and lowest-income families who are renting. This will increase it by $500 and put that in the pockets of nearly two million renters who are struggling to pay their rent.

The member for Spadina—Fort York can certainly recognize the impacts these measures will have for Canadians in his riding. Many of them are indeed struggling to make ends meet, and these measures will help.

Later this week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will release the fall economic statement, which will lay out some of the steps our government will take toward a brighter future for our country.

When it comes to the clean fuel regulations and pollution pricing, I would remind my colleague of the importance of continuing to work on the green transition while doing everything we can to make life more affordable in this country.

I spent some considerable time in the riding of my colleague. The fact is, his constituents are concerned about the impacts of climate change. His constituents were disappointed when Premier Doug Ford cancelled cap and trade, and his constituents were relieved when the federal government stepped in with supports.

I just got off the phone with a constituent who had valid questions about the price on pollution. As I explained it to him, this is a backstop program for provinces that do not have a plan to fight climate change. Previous to this, the province of Ontario had a $3-billion program. That was a revenue program for the province, called cap and trade, and unfortunately Doug Ford scrapped it. That is illegal. Every province and territory is bound by law to have a plan to fight climate change and to price pollution accordingly. The simple truth is that climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate. It is an economic necessity. Our government has a plan that will save the planet. It will create growth and make life more affordable all at the same time. We will continue to move forward with that plan.

In conclusion, I would say that every single member, all 338 in the House, ran on a commitment to price carbon in the last election. There were a couple of versions of it, but it was a unanimous position—

Opposition Motion—ArriveCAN Application Performance Audit

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She spoke about Bill C-31 and the housing assistance set out in that bill. Unfortunately, there is a severe housing crisis going on. A few weeks ago, I spoke with an economist from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He told me that in Quebec alone, 600,000 new units would need to be built over the next 10 years to deal with the crisis.

Bill C‑31 does not provide for the construction of a single unit. This year, $500 is being sent out, but more money will need to be sent out next year. In addition, 85,000 Quebeckers who live in social housing are being left out. That is a fundamental issue.

Does my colleague not think that Bill C‑31 could have built units to address the shortage, instead of sending out one-time cheques this year?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to rise today and to reiterate several things that have already been heard in the House but are still worth repeating.

Our government understands that many Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of living and continue to face higher prices when they go to the grocery store or pay their rent. For many families, it is increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

Inflation is a global phenomenon and a lingering result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and by disruptions in supply chains. This phenomenon affects people and businesses around the world. Although Canada’s inflation rate is less severe at 6.9% than that of many of our peers, such the United States, where inflation is now at 8.2%, the United Kingdom, at 10%, and Germany, at 10%, we know that many Canadians are struggling and that we are not out of the woods yet.

Many Canadians will continue facing tough times. Our friends, our families and the people around us will continue to struggle to pay the bills at the end of the month. Every day, we see the cost of groceries rise dramatically. Our economy will slow down, as will economies around the world, while central banks act to fight inflation. There will be people whose mortgage payments will increase, companies or entrepreneurs whose businesses will not do as well as they have since the end of the lockdown. It is quite likely that our unemployment rate will no longer be at its lowest level.

Canadians are worried, and that is why we are moving ahead with measures to support those who need it the most, when they need it the most. Our plan is to make life more affordable, with measures totalling $12.1 billion to help Canadians make ends meet and provide for their families.

Our plan includes an enhanced Canada workers benefit, which will put up to $2,400 more in the pockets of low-income families; an average reduction of 50% in child care costs by the end of the year; a 10% increase to old age security for people 75 or older, which has already been in place for four months; dental care for Canadians with a family income under $90,000 per year, starting with children under the age of 12; an additional one-time payment of $500, coming this year, to help tenants who have trouble paying the cost of housing; doubling the GST credit for six months, which will give additional targeted help to about 11 million individuals and families. Of course, we cannot forget our main support programs, including the Canada child benefit and the GST credit, which will be increasing, as they are already indexed to inflation.

The measures we are putting forward in our affordability plan do not add fuel to the inflation fire. They simply provide targeted and fiscally responsible help to those who need it the most.

Unfortunately, we obviously cannot support every Canadian as we did during COVID-19. We implemented exceptional emergency measures that ensured the safety and solvency of people at the height of the pandemic. We cannot fully compensate every Canadian for the inflation they are now facing, inflation that is, again, fuelled by the global pandemic and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Canadians fully understand that doing so would only aggravate and prolong inflation, and that is clearly not what we want. That would also force the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates even higher.

While we are emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic and we support those who are hardest hit by inflation, we continue to pursue a tight fiscal policy. Indeed, this year, the International Monetary fund, the IMF, expects Canada to have the lowest deficit, as well as the lowest net-debt burden, of all governments among G7 countries as a percentage of GDP. This is a track that our country is forecasted to maintain over the coming years.

While many Canadian families have to tighten their belts and make difficult decisions because of inflation, our government is doing the same thing to ensure we do not make the situation worse. We are acting responsibly.

Our government believes that everyone should have a safe, decent and affordable place to live.

That goal was seen as a given for generations, but it is increasingly unattainable for many Canadians. Rents continue to rise across the country, pushing people further and further away from the places where they work and live. There has even been an increase in both visible and invisible homelessness.

That is why Bill C-31 proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit that would consist of a tax-free payment of $500 to provide direct support to low-income renters.

That payment would provide direct help to the people most exposed to inflation and those experiencing housing affordability challenges. It is estimated that 1.8 million low-income renters, including students who are struggling with the cost of housing, would be eligible for this new support.

This one-time top-up is part of a broader suite of initiatives introduced in budget 2022, which will invest over $9 billion to make housing more affordable, including by addressing supply shortages, one of the main factors making housing more expensive.

With many families grappling with the rising cost of living, our government understands that it can be hard for them to pay for the dental care they need. Unfortunately, a third of Canadians currently do not have dental insurance, and the 2018 Canadian Community Health Survey suggested that Canadians without insurance were about three times as likely as those with insurance to avoid seeing a dental professional because of cost.

That is why, with Bill C‑31, which is moving through the legislative process, we are proposing to help uninsured families with children under the age of 12 get the dental care they need.

The Canada dental benefit would provide parents with children under the age of 12 who do not have access to dental insurance with direct payments of up to $650 per year, for a total of $1,300 per child over the next two years for dental care beginning this year. It is estimated that 500,000 Canadian children would benefit from this targeted investment of $938 million.

Our government knows that these are tough times for everyone, for all Canadians and all Quebeckers. That is why we are implementing our plan to make life affordable for the most vulnerable.

On Thursday, our colleague, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, will be presenting the fall economic statement, which will outline our government's plan to continue building an economy that works for everyone.

Canadians can count on us to continue managing our finances responsibly, while supporting those who need it the most, when they need it the most.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to the New Democrat who asked if they have some of those, yes, there are some NDP entrepreneurs out there. All were given contracts, because there is a process in place.

The Conservatives name an organization, and then they put the word “scandal” behind it. That assumes it is an official scandal if all they have to do is to put the word “scandal” behind it. The most natural scandal is the word “Conservative” followed by the word “scandal”. Having said that, they cite the WE charity as if to say, wow, this is it. This is the gold mine of all scandals. However, WE has contracts with the Manitoba government, a Conservative government. It is hard to believe. WE has contracts with the Saskatchewan government, another Conservative government.

The bottom line is that when we needed to be able to work with industries, entrepreneurs and Canadians in general, there was a need and a process. To identify a Liberal entrepreneur and say that it is corrupt because a Liberal entrepreneur won a contract does a disservice to all of us. That is really a sad aspect of this. At the end of the day, Canadians expected the government to work at delivering, and that is what we did.

We worked with other levels of government and the many different stakeholders I made mention of, and it helped. Around nine million Canadians received CERB, even though we are now being criticized for providing that program for the many people who received those benefits. At the time, we were criticized when we were not moving fast enough, and we were told we should be more generous. Tens of thousands of jobs were saved because of the wage subsidy program.

We can talk about the ArriveCAN app. It is being suggested that the Auditor General look into it. That seems to be supported by the New Democrats, the Bloc and the Conservatives today. It is being looked at in the standing committee. CBSA is also doing a full review of the issue. The government is not running or hiding from anything here, but the Conservatives want to attach the word “scandal” to it and attach numbers without giving any details. That is what they want to debate.

They want to give the false impression that there is scandal after scandal. I was here when Stephen Harper was prime minister. If we want to talk about scandals, there was the riding of Muskoka and the minister, Mr. Clement, or we could look at the Senate issue. However, it is not about scandals. I would suggest it is about providing the supports that were absolutely necessary at the time to protect Canadians. That is what the ministers were charged to do. ArriveCAN was a part of that.

I suspect that over the days, weeks and months ahead, we will continue to look at the manner in which public dollars were being spent. There needs to be a sense of accountability. We do not need to be reminded of that. After all, I remember when the Prime Minister first became the leader of the Liberal Party. One of the first actions we did was to call for proactive disclosure from MPs on how they were spending money. We requested unanimous leave in order to enact it, and the Conservatives said no to that.

We are not trying to hide anything. We, like all members, would like to show that the tax dollar, which is very important to all of us, is being appropriately spent. We have systems in place to ensure there is a high level of accountability.

The leader of the Conservative Party, in his speech, emphasized the issue of inflation. It is truly amazing how the Conservatives seem to be completely out of touch with what is happening around the world. They seem to think Canada needs to do more. I am concerned about the price of groceries and the price of widgets at our local stores. That concerns me, as it concerns all Liberal members of Parliament.

That is why we are bringing forward things like Bill C-31, the dental plan and rental plan. It was to support Canadians. The Conservatives voted against that. They talk about inflation and doing things, but when it comes to standing up for Canadians, they stand up to say no.

There are things we can do, and we should not settle, even though Canada's inflation rate is lower than that in the U.S., England or most of the European countries. We can still do more on the issue, and we will continue to look at ways to make things easier for Canadians.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the member for Terrebonne.

Naturally, she focused on the ethical dimension, including when she referred to the sponsorship scandal. I think she could have also referred to the WE Charity scandal, in which a billion-dollar contract was awarded to friends of the Prime Minister. There is also the famous respirator contract granted at the time to well-known Liberals without a call for tenders.

With ArriveCAN, we do not know who the contract was awarded to or how it was done. However, we know that the government will create a new program through Bill C‑31, which has just been passed. That program will give $600 cheques to people who receive dental care. However, it would seem that the government again needs private companies. Once again, they will need to contract out.

The government systematically contracts out to the private sector, but every time, it seems to benefit friends of the Liberal Party in particular. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, if we combine the two speeches from the finance critic and the leader of the Conservative Party, we get a message that they have been consistent on for a long time.

First, there is the issue of character assassination. The Conservatives creep under a rock or get in a gutter to attack, whether it is the Prime Minister or any other minister. That is one of their objectives. The second one now is dealing with the issue of inflation. They close their eyes, dunk their heads in the sand and pretend inflation is something unique to Canada. Here is a reality check: Inflation is happening around the world.

Yes, we are concerned about inflation, and that is the reason we bring forward bills such as Bill C-31. The Conservative Party voted against that bill, even though it would support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

I have a question for the critic of finance of the Conservative Party. Why is it that the Conservative Party refuses to reflect on reality? Yes, we have serious inflation in Canada, but it is better than in countries, such as the U.S., England, those in Europe and so many others. Why will the Conservatives not support initiatives to support Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition raised a very acute and real reality that many Canadians are facing right now. They are facing extreme hardships as a result of global inflation and as a result of what is going on throughout the world right now.

I will put to him the question that he has been asked several times in the House by the Prime Minister: Why did the Conservatives choose not to vote in favour of Bill C-31? That is the bill to give important relief to Canadians, in particular Canadians who needed it the most, Canadians he referenced in his speech.

Would the member be willing to share with the House now why Conservatives voted against that very important measure?

The Economy

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his motion, which was debated in this place earlier in the month. I was pleased to see it received unanimous support.

My colleague across the way is right. Canadian families are struggling with the rising cost of essential purchases. For seven years now, our government has been working to build an economy that works for everyone, and for seven years we have been doing just that. We have introduced measures that have helped grow the economy, created jobs and created a fairer and more level playing field for Canadians.

Our government is keenly aware that rising prices, which have been seen around the world, are impacting Canadians. High inflation is a global phenomenon caused by events beyond our control. The root of the problem is not Canadian, but we have a made-in-Canada solution to help people who need it the most.

Now that Bill C-30 has received royal assent, individuals and families receiving the GST credit will receive an additional $2.5 billion in support starting in early November.

With Bill C-31 and the support of the New Democratic Party, we are proposing to create the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 in families with annual incomes under $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. The bill also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit, which would put $500 in the pockets of nearly two million renters who are struggling to pay their rent.

These two bills stand as a testament to what can be achieved in this place when members from all parties work together, and I am sure the hon. member can appreciate the impact these measures will have for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.

I am also happy to see the Competition Bureau has launched a study on food pricing in the grocery sector. It is completely unacceptable to take advantage of a crisis to raise prices on consumers. We expect the Competition Bureau to act swiftly if there is evidence of unlawful or anti-competitive behaviour in the marketplace. If there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry will ask the Competition Bureau to investigate promptly and take appropriate action.

We brought in universal child care that is helping young families, including my own, as my son and his family benefit from the program. I would also like to reassure my hon. colleague our government firmly believes in tax fairness. Since 2015, we have worked to ensure the wealthiest people and businesses pay their fair share, and we will continue to do so.

In budget 2022, we announced a permanent increase in the corporate income tax rate by 1.5% on the largest, most profitable banks and life insurance company groups in Canada. Budget 2022 also announced a temporary Canada recovery dividend, under which banks and life insurance groups would pay a one-time 15% tax on the 2020 and 2021 average taxable income above $1 billion to recover some of the benefits conferred to financial institutions from the government's pandemic supports.

Later this week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will release the fall economic statement, which will lay out some of the steps our government will take toward a brighter future for our country. Our government is doing everything we can to make life affordable for Canadians. We will also continue to make the Canadian tax system fairer so we can continue to deliver the effective programs and services Canadians deserve.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that is rich of the member and full of hypocrisy when he supported Bill C-31 going through this process in an abridged manner after a guillotine motion was passed. We had two witnesses who were ministers and three witnesses who were government departmental officials come before the health committee for two hours. That was how long we had to study a billion-dollar bill.

Therefore, I am sorry, but I am not going to take any lessons from the member opposite. I am not going to allow him to come here to tell me that this is somehow not an affront to democracy and that we should let this pass because, when the Liberals are given the choice, they just ram things through. It is their way or the highway, and unfortunately Canadians deserve better.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague was justifiably critical of the way the government is managing its legislative agenda. Last year, the government prorogued the House, and I still cannot get over that.

Yesterday, Bill C‑31 was passed on closure. It is an important bill whose purpose is to send people money for housing and dental care, but we had a lot of problems with it. Contrary to what the government thinks, Bill C‑31 does not really solve the problem of the housing crisis in Canada. It is like a band-aid on a gaping wound.

However, my Conservative friends are not to be outdone when it comes to using time-wasting tactics here. I have been a member of the House for three years, and one of the most egregious things I have seen in that time happened the night the Conservatives made us vote on which of two members of the Conservative Party would get the floor. Later, in the lobby, I heard my Conservative friends laugh about finding this procedural loophole. How clever of them to figure out a way to delay proceedings for everyone. They wasted an hour of the House's time when we were supposed to be working on important issues.

Does my colleague think it would be a good idea for the Conservatives to come to the table and get to work, too?

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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand on a Thursday and answer the Thursday question.

To my hon. colleague across, perhaps he is not aware or perhaps he has not had the opportunity to peruse headlines from around the world, but inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. I might also note that inflation is actually much higher in the U.S., the U.K. and the eurozone. What we need to do is vote for measures. I was disappointed that the Conservatives did not support the legislation we had today, Bill C-31. They had an opportunity to support families with dental care and to support housing.

I do not think it will come as a surprise to the member opposite that we will under no circumstances abandon the cause of climate change. We will under no circumstances stop the work we are doing to put a price on pollution and give eight out of 10 families more money back than they pay for that price on pollution.

In terms of the matters that are immediately before the House, although I do encourage the member opposite to continue forwarding his ideas and look forward to those conversations, this afternoon we will complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care—

The Economy

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of compassion being heard from the other side about pandemic supports that supported families, that made sure parents could put food on the table, that parents could pay their rent or their mortgage and that families could ensure they knew they would be able to get through to the end of the month because of the Canada emergency response benefit is unbelievable from the Conservatives. If they truly had compassion, if they truly cared about supporting Canadian families, they would vote with us today on Bill C-31 and provide—

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for the question and for her hard work.

Inflation in Canada has shown signs of slowing down. That said, we understand that the cost of living remains a concern for Canadians. The current inflationary period is the result of the war in Ukraine, problems with the supply chain and the zero COVID policy in China.

That is why we took action by bringing in bills C‑30 and C‑31. We have passed Bill C‑30 in the House and we are close to passing Bill C‑31.

We hope the Conservatives will support Canadians and vote in favour of Bill C‑31.

Finance

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. He knows very well that the Bank of Canada is an independent institution in this country, an institution that has helped Canadians through tough times. Our responsibility is to manage the country's fiscal plan properly. We have gotten through the pandemic. We have a concrete plan to lower the cost of living, and it includes supporting the most vulnerable people.

We hope that the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives will vote in favour of Canadians and vote for Bill C-31.

Housing

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of measures the government is taking to deal with issues like inflation, such as Bill C-30, which deals with the doubling of the GST rebate, and Bill C-31, dealing with dental and rental benefits.

One of the programs that I am a big advocate of, which we often forget about, came out in budget 2022. It is a new multi-generational home renovation tax credit. This is a fantastic program that enables people to look at the value of adding a secondary unit to their homes. It is a great way to support our seniors and support people with disabilities.

We all know that seniors thrive so much more when they are in a family environment, as it encourages families to continue to grow together. To me that is what this program is all about.

The Economy

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I am happy to talk about monetary and fiscal policy any time. I note that the member wanted to change the channel a bit there.

We have developed an affordability plan that makes life more affordable for Canadians. It gets money to people who need it the most, when they need it the most. Canadians from coast to coast to coast can count on us to continue to support them through this period of global elevated inflation.

With Bill C-31, we are proposing to create the Canada dental benefit for families with annual incomes under $90,000. This is literally a piece of legislation that is going to enable children who could not afford to get their teeth fixed to get them fixed. We know good oral hygiene and good dental health lead to better overall health and better productivity. Those investments not only are fair and the right thing to do for those children, but will actually help us grow our economy in the future. This bill also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program, to those renters—

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

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

Mr. Speaker, I am laughing my head off. Our colleagues have gone on and on all day about how there are more important things in life and we need to work on solving problems. They seem to think this is a place where problems get solved. That is the joke of the year for sure.

Bill C‑31 gives renters $500. There are 87,000 people in Quebec who will not benefit from that. Organizations in Quebec tell us that inadequately housed renters do not need $500; they need bricks and mortar. That is what will fix the problem.

Bill C‑31 will not fix climate change. Canada is one of the worst countries in the world. This morning, members said we should be talking about climate change. That would be fine if we actually fixed problems, but we never fix anything here.

My Conservative friend knows all about wasting time. I remember one evening when the Conservatives wasted a whole hour of the House's time on a vote and on figuring out which of two Conservative members would do the talking. That was an incredible waste of time. The Conservatives are in no position to lecture us.

Amendments at Committee Stage to Bill C-31

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Following the presentation earlier today of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health on Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown...no matter how tempting this may be.

The two amendments in question relate to part 2 of Bill C-31, which would enact the rental housing benefit act and provide 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.

The first amendment would modify clause 3 of the bill, which proposes to modify, in subsection 4(2) of the rental housing benefit act, the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), by increasing the percentage of the payment to be taken into account for rent payments that include board or other services from 75% to 90%.

The second amendment seeks to amend the same clause and proposes to eliminate, in subsection 4(3) of the rental housing benefit act, the rule that would reduce the amount of rent taken into account in the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold. This is set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), paid in 2022 by cohabiting spouses or common-law partners living separately on the reference day.

The chair of the committee ruled each amendment inadmissible because they lacked the required royal recommendation. Both decisions were challenged and overturned. The committee then debated each amendment and adopted them.

The committee chair was correct in the assessment of both amendments relaxing the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit. This would result in a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill since more people could have access to the benefit.

Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that:

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.

Consequently, these amendments need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. By adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiatives of the Crown, a committee exceeds its powers.

Consequently, the Chair must declare null and void the two aforementioned amendments to clause 3 of Bill C‑31, adopted by the Standing Committee on Health, and direct that the amendments no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-31 be published as early as possible for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

I thank members for their attention.

Opposition motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the motion tabled by our hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois to speak to an important issue. That issue is Canadian democracy and the Crown. We will be opposing this motion.

I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that representing a riding in the House of Commons is an honour and a privilege. One of the very foundations of our democracy is political representation and the fact that the people we represent elect us through transparent, fair and independently administered elections.

With democracy being challenged in so many countries around the world, it is easy to think of examples of what happens where this no longer holds. As all of us gathered here today know, the strong and resilient form of democracy we have in Canada today did not simply appear one day fully formed. It is the product of over a century of evolution. It has been fought for, and it has been gained at the cost of many men and women's blood. Today, we will continue to defend that democracy.

While Canada continues to do well on most international measures of democracy, there is, of course, always room for improvement and change. Democracy is a work in progress. It requires our constant attention. We must continue to work to ensure that Canadians in all their diversity, including marginalized people, can make their voices heard. This includes our important ongoing journey toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

In July 2022, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, published its report on trust. The report reveals that OECD countries, including Canada, have a strong democratic system. OECD countries are constantly looking for ways to improve the delivery of services to the public and the transparency of their public administrations. However, we also know that there is still work to be done. OECD countries must listen to their citizens and ensure that public policies meet their expectations. That is especially true in the context of the pandemic and global inflation. One of the main lessons learned from these challenges is that to obtain the trust of citizens, government must be aware of citizens' realities.

We know that trust is earned through performance, but to be able to get to that, we need to understand citizens' needs and their expectations, and this is something governments must continue to dedicate themselves to. Public engagement, conversation and dialogue are critical to understanding what is important to our citizens and important parts of an effective, open and transparent government. They are critical to our efforts to build and renew public trust.

Hearing from our citizens helps us better understand the diversity of opinions to ensure we focus on what is most important to them. There are many things that are on the minds of Canadians, and I would say the Bloc Québécois motion today is not the foremost one. The recent OECD open government scan of Canada notes that Canada has a strong public consultation culture and that Canada scores comparatively well when it comes to stakeholder engagement. This is both an affirmation of what we have done so far and a reminder that we can always do better. We can do more to earn and maintain citizens' trust.

Our institutions and practices reflect our societal values. We need to protect them. While the founders of our Parliament took inspiration from the halls of Westminster for sure, in our geography, our design and in our buildings, we have always adapted our own institutions and our own practices. They are made-in-Canada solutions to fit our own realities and our needs.

No one doubts the fact that decisions affecting Canada today are made here, in this place, and in the legislative assemblies of the provinces and territories of our country. Of course, the House is just one part of Parliament and Parliament itself is just one part of Canada's governing system.

As we all know, Canada is a constitutional monarchy. I imagine that it will be in place for quite some time. Historically, the Crown has played an important role in the evolution of our country. In 1982, the Queen of Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, signed our Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These two pillars of democracy help ensure the stability of our country and guarantee the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Although our attachment to the Crown has historical and cultural significance, its role is for the most part based on formalities. These are the principles that underpin our democracy.

The role of the sovereign in our constitutional monarchy is tightly prescribed. Although the last stage in the passage of our laws remains royal assent, most of the work of representing and defending citizens' interests is done in this place by its members.

Parliament is where the issues of the day should be debated and decided. The sovereign, the Governor General do not interfere in politics or these decisions. Yes, they can advise a prime minister, but they cannot reject the government's requests or undermine its position. This is the government, we are the Parliament, and they are separate. In our constitutional monarchy, the Crown's function in our government is to be a bedrock for our Constitution. It is more than a symbol, a sign; it is something we can put our hats on and our hands around to ensure that our Constitution is guaranteed, and it should transcend the political debates of the day.

The stability of our democratic institutions gives Canadians assurance and peace of mind from coast to coast to coast, so that we, as elected representatives, can focus on the issues that matter the most to Canadians. Those issues are clear, issues like the cost of living, dental care, housing affordability, the health of our economy, the health of our seniors and that of our planet.

Canada is free now and with all of our efforts will remain so. Wherever we sit in the House, I am confident that we all share that goal for a free and vibrant democracy. Let the sovereign, His Majesty King Charles III, King of Canada, be a symbol of that freedom and of our shared purpose as a country to remain free, to remain with dignity and liberty whatever the issues of the day upon which we have, and will continue to have, differences of opinion. Differences will exist in the House, they exist in Canada, but we share in common our goal of a united, passionate, just and free country.

The sovereign also acts as a symbol of what does unite our country. As you know, Madam Speaker, the actual presence of the Crown is often felt more immediately for Canadians through the sovereign's representatives in Canada, which are the Governor General and the lieutenant governors who perform most of the constitutional functions of the sovereign in his name.

The vice-regal representatives work tirelessly, whether awarding honours to Canadians and celebrating that which is best in our communities to performing their constitutional duties. They are a remarkable group of dedicated Canadians who, in their work, highlight the many people who contribute to our country day after day. We get honours sitting in the House, but the people who do that work are sometimes honoured by the Governor General or lieutenant governors of our provinces to ensure that they are honoured for what they do to keep Canada whole. They contribute to our great country. Our vice-regals, whether through formal awards in the arts, sciences, humanities, academic achievement in our high schools and universities or by recognizing the many volunteers who give their time to their communities, are fundamental to the way we live in Canada.

Canada's democracy and how Canadians govern themselves are important topics. It is absolutely clear that we should have discussions about our constitutional democracy, which is valid. One of the ways democracy has been resilient as a form of government is that it is best placed to deliver for its citizens, and that is what democracy does best, and doing so in a way that respects and helps fulfill their rights as human beings and as citizens. That is a bedrock part of democracy. This is the work we need to do together as elected representatives in this place to deliver on the needs of Canadians in uncertain times.

While many of the financial challenges we face are indeed global in nature, we experience them locally in our homes, on our streets and in our communities. That is why the government has taken on these issues of affordability, especially housing affordability but also the cost of living, extremely seriously. Housing affordability is a real and growing concern and should be a paramount issue for everyone in the House. It is the highest issue for young Canadians and people living in my riding. They are worried that they will not have the same opportunities as their parents and grandparents to own a home, to build a future.

Over the past two years, housing prices have become unaffordable for far too many people. Many people are being forced to live further and further away from their place of work and the place they grew up, when, often, that is where they want to build their future. Housing affordability is a complex issue. There is no miracle solution. In the 2022 budget, the government presented a long-term plan to address housing affordability for Canadians. This plan has three pillars, which are to help Canadians save to buy a house, to curb speculation and to increase the supply of housing, something that we should all be working on together.

There is more to be done to address affordability in housing and the cost of living beyond home ownership. This past September, the government introduced Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

Many Canadians have no access to a dental services plan. They do not use those services because of the cost, yet we know that a lack of access to dental care services not only causes harm to children but also has an impact on the whole health care system. It has to be addressed. It is one of those urgent matters that we need to share in the House. The government recognizes the need to provide interim dental benefits for children under 12 years old, while working toward the development of a long-term national dental care program.

Bill C-31 proposes a rental housing benefit act to provide a one-time payment to help low-income renters.

Together, these targeted measures will provide real benefits to Canadians who need them the most as we face global cost of living increases. This is a crisis that we need to address. We have been doing it for the last seven years as a government with the Canada child benefit and other measures that have attempted to reduce poverty and start to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor in our country. That work needs to continue and to be done day after day.

There are other issues on our government's agenda that also take priority over the motion that has been suggested today. The government is focused on delivering the needs of Canadians by taking action on climate change. The OECD trust—

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, I should apologize to the folks in the gallery, because this is probably not the day to come and listen to a debate. Bill S-5, as riveting as we try to make it, probably does not have the most riveting debate.

I just will recap, as I was cut short prior to question period, some of the concerns we have with Bill S-5. I will say that the Conservatives are going to support sending Bill S-5 to committee, but there are some concerns. The number one concern we have is trusting that the government is going to do what it says it is going to do, because as we know and have seen for the last seven years, it has failed on a number of its promises and has not delivered on a number of its promises.

The carbon tax has done nothing but make things more unaffordable for Canadians. It has done nothing to cut emissions. As a matter of fact, emissions have gone up every year with the imposition of the carbon tax. The Liberals have waged war on our natural resource industry and energy sector.

There is no doubt that I live in an area ravaged by wildfires, drought and flooding. We have to take concrete action on climate change, and what the government has done is stand up and say all the right things. However, it has literally done nothing. I introduced into the record some bills that have waged war on our natural resource sector and energy sector, making it more difficult for them to compete on the world stage. As a matter of fact, the Liberals have landlocked Canadian resources in many ways and have failed to secure a softwood lumber agreement. They like to say it was all due to the previous government, yet every time something happens, they fail to take responsibility.

The Liberals are in government, and I will perhaps pre-empt our colleagues across the way as to some of the questions they are going to ask. They are going to ask where the Conservatives' plan is for climate change. They are in government at this time, and they have had seven years to come up with a plan, yet they have failed to do so.

Bill S-5 deals with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 would be the first major update since 1999. It recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and requires the Government of Canada to protect this right, which I do not think anyone on this side would disagree with. What we do disagree with is that it is going to take the Liberals another two years to figure out what that means. What does it mean for every Canadian to have the right to a healthy environment? Now they are going to study it for another two more years.

One thing that is always challenging with the government is that it tells us and Canadians, “Just trust us. We'll get it done.” We should just trust, when we send a bill to committee, that it will consider the amendments and flesh out all the details in parliamentary committees. However, we have seen time and time again that the government fails to take up any of the considerations the opposition gives.

I am in the health committee right now. As a matter of fact, we start in 10 minutes. We are studying Bill C-31, a bill that has been rammed down our throats, although I think it is well intentioned. It is the rental and dental bill, and I will remind Canadians that we have essentially been given by the government and its costly coalition with the NDP two hours to study this piece of legislation and question the ministers. It is predicted that up to $10 billion is going to be spent on it, so there are just two hours of study on a piece of legislation that is very important.

I know members are going ask what I have against our most marginalized communities. I live in an area and jurisdiction where rent is very, very expensive. I am not disagreeing that the amount of money they are going to give, which I think is $600 or $500, will help for perhaps a week of rent in our neck of the woods, but what happens to Canadians who are struggling the rest of the time?

The Liberals come out with these schemes, and all we are saying is, “Show us a plan.” They have had seven years to deliver on plans, and I will remind them again that when we are talking about environmental protection, the government, after seven years, still continues to approve dumping billion upon billions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways. In 2017 alone, an estimated 167 billion litres were pumped into the waterways. Just this April, Quebec had a massive issue in Quebec City, I believe, where over two days in April, 21 million litres of sewage were dumped into the St. Lawrence River every hour. Again, every hour, 21 million litres of raw sewage were dumped.

Bill S-5 also deals with, and muddies the water a bit on, provincial jurisdiction. Again, the government, as we have seen over the last seven years, likes to ram things through. It is ham-fisted in its approach to legislation.

We know that Bill S-5 takes aim at the plastics industry and now lists plastic in schedule 1. While the Liberals have taken the word “toxic” out, substances that are regulated are still referred to as toxic. The plastics industry has some concerns with that.

When I talk about plastics, I will be the first to admit that when I was on the fisheries file, I was staggered when I saw the amount of plastic waste in our oceans. At any given time, there are about 5.25 trillion macroplastic and microplastic pieces floating in our oceans. Yes, we have to do things to combat that and have to be smart about that. There is no disagreeing with that. However, let us remember some of the important parts of society that plastics and the plastic industry contribute to.

In the health care field, plastics have been widely used to create medical tools and devices, such as surgical gloves, syringes, insulin pens, IV tubes, catheters and inflatable splints. These products are created for one-time use and help prevent the spread of dangerous diseases by eliminating the need to sterilize and reuse a device.

There is enhanced safety. The durable nature of plastics allows for its application in the creation of medical safety devices, such as tamper-proof caps on medical packaging, blister packs and various medical waste disposable bags.

Regarding increased comfort, previously, the health care industry used metal or metallic medical devices, especially in the field of prosthetics. I have a prosthetic in my knee right now that I am dealing with, which is something I am very well aware of. Owing to the durability and versatility of plastic, it is now used as a replacement for such medical components.

Regarding innovative applications, since plastic can be moulded per the requirement of a specific application, it has also been used to develop new medical devices. Also, the cost effectiveness of plastic means that it can not only be mass-produced at a cost-effective rate, but allows for a wider range of applications, making it a worthwhile investment.

Regarding the benefits of plastic, while I am not up here defending the plastics industry by any means, given what I said earlier in my speech about plastic waste and the microplastics that find their way into our oceans and waterways, there are benefits and advantages of plastics in terms of greening our industry and cost effectiveness.

An EU study, which I have in front of me, says that 22% of an Airbus A380 double-decker aircraft is built with lightweight carbon fibre-reinforced plastics. That saves fuel and lowers operating costs by 15%. It also lowers the emissions of that aircraft.

About 105 kilograms of plastics, rather than the traditional materials in a car weighing 1,000 kilograms, make possible fuel savings of 750 litres over a lifespan of 90,000 miles. This reduces oil consumption by 12 million tonnes and, consequently, CO2 emissions by 30 million tonnes in the European Union alone.

If we look at renewable energies and the use of plastics there, we know that pipes, solar panels, wind turbines and rotors all use plastic and petroleum components in them as well. When we look at cutting our greenhouse gases and making sure our homes are greener and more efficient, double-glazed windows are essential for energy-efficient homes. They have a minimum of 35 years of life and are easily maintained.

There are a number of things we can all agree on. The things that we disagree on and have concerns about are the 24 amendments the Independent Senators Group, which we know is not so independent as it is appointed by the Prime Minister and the government, brought forward.

It is challenging for us to trust what the Liberal government is going to say. I have been here for seven years. This is my seventh anniversary of being an elected member of Parliament, and I came here not so jaded. I have good friends on the other side, and I will say that there are good people on all sides of the House who come to Ottawa with the best intentions. However, sadly, what we just saw for the vote on the Conservative opposition day motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn is that only one Liberal member of Parliament voted in favour of it. He stood up for his constituents.

I will remind people that this is about the government tripling its carbon tax and making things more costly for those who live in rural and remote areas and depend on heating oil and propane to heat their homes. Canada is the only G7 country to have raised fuel taxes during the period of record-high global fuel prices, and energy analysts have predicted that Canadians could see their home heating bills rise by 50% to 100%, on average, this winter.

When this was brought up in question period, the parliamentary secretaries and the Minister of Environment stood and asked what the Conservatives have against the carbon tax, especially when the good folks on the east coast have just gone through such a horrendous natural disaster with the hurricane that took place, the 100-year storm. I heard one of my Liberal friends say there were 100-foot waves. It is unbelievable. The pictures and images are just incredible, yet the Liberals are not concerned about the cost of living, which has become unattainable for those living in rural and remote areas. Things are getting harder and harder, and even Liberal premiers are appealing to the government to do whatever it can to cancel its planned carbon tax hike and make things more affordable.

I will remind Canadians that on January 1, they are also going to wake up to a payroll tax, with more money being taken away by the Liberal government. All it has done is make things harder and harder. The Conservatives will agree to pass Bill S-5 to get it to committee, but we have some serious concerns.

Dental Care

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for his work and for stressing that oral health care really is part of essential health care.

That is why we are very pleased with the progress being made towards passing Bill C-31, which will help families and 500,000 children avoid hospitalization because of widespread infection and reduce the costs and risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal illness. It will ensure that children have the dental care they need and reduce the cost of living for families concerned.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are also being affected by rising inflation across the globe. Our government remains committed to this fight and is constantly looking for solutions that will help Canadian families.

Can the minister tell us how important it is to pass Bill C-31, which will help Canadian children have access to affordable dental care and bring much-needed relief to those who are having a hard time paying their rent?

Carbon Pricing

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my hon. colleague in his new role. He speaks, as do the Conservatives, about the need to make life more affordable for Canadians.

They have the opportunity to do just that. This week, they can vote to support half a million kids with dental supports. They can support low-income renters with $500 for housing supports. They can do the right thing and vote for Bill C-31 this week.

The question is this: Will they, or will they not?

Taxation

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative opposition has a golden opportunity to do this week what it did last week, which was to see the light, support Canadians and vote for a bill proposed by the Liberals to make life more affordable for Canadians. It can support half a million Canadian children with our dental plan. It can support low-cost renters with our housing plan.

Will the opposition do the right thing and vote for Bill C-31? That is what Canadians want to know.

Federal Framework on Housing for Individuals with Non-visible Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this important topic. I thank my colleague for introducing a motion on such a challenging but crucial issue as the housing crisis.

On Friday afternoons, we are all like school kids waiting for the bell to ring. I have had this Friday afternoon speaking slot a few times, and there is always that point where everyone is looking at their watch and feeling a bit droopy. That is understandable.

I talked about the housing crisis last time too, but let us talk about it again. I am glad this motion is up for discussion today so we can talk about it. As my colleague who just spoke said, the housing crisis in Quebec and the rest of Canada is dire and of crucial importance.

I had the opportunity to talk about it two weeks ago: Scotia Bank says that we are short 3.5 million housing units in Canada to deal with the current crisis. It is a huge task. I was talking with an economist at CMHC who said that if nothing is done in the next 10 years and we allow the market to have its way, then there will be 500,000 housing units built in Quebec. There will be condos, bungalows, triplexes and various types of housing. It will not necessarily be just housing for the most vulnerable. If developers are not forced to build affordable housing for the most vulnerable, it will not happen. If we allow the market to have its way, as I was saying, 500,000 housing units will be built. According to that CMHC economist, an additional 600,000 affordable housing units need to be built to deal with the current affordability and accessibility problems. It is a huge task, a massive undertaking. The government needs to face the facts.

My colleague has good intentions, but she needs to talk to her department and to those people. Her government boasts about spending $72 billion under the national housing strategy, but only 35,000 housing units have been built in five years. They are only halfway there. The strategy, which was launched in 2017, was a 10-year plan. They have built 35,000 housing units and renovated 60,000 others. That is nowhere near the goal. They are a long way off from dealing with the major housing issue in this country.

I put a question earlier to my Liberal colleague, the member who moved the motion. Under Bill C‑31, $500 will be sent to individuals who earn less than $20,000, or families earning less than $35,000, and who spend more than 30% of their income on rent. That is commendable. We could not oppose sending the $500. However, Quebec has social housing. Some Quebeckers pay 25%, or less than 30%, of their income on housing. That is how it works. People with lower incomes have access to social housing that was built precisely because the federal government withdrew from housing. Quebec created a program called AccèsLogis.

In reading between the lines of Bill C‑31, it is clear that 87,000 people will not be eligible for this assistance, and that is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That means 87,000 low-income people who earn less than $20,000, so people who are poor. The federal government is going to send money to people all over Canada, but because Quebec is progressive, because we address our problems, because we create programs to help the most vulnerable in our society, we are being penalized. The same thing has happened with many programs that have come before the House. Quebec is usually at the vanguard, but we have to fight for every penny, because we create our own programs to help people.

Over the past few days, I also spoke with housing experts such as the staff at Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation. They told me that they had high expectations for the NDP-Liberal coalition. They believed that the NDP would pressure the government to tackle the housing crisis and build more housing. The people in Quebec I spoke to over the past two weeks are devastated by the result. Who would be against people receiving a $500 cheque? Naturally, everyone is pleased, but that is not what is needed. That is not what the organizations are telling us. I no longer remember the exact figure proposed in Bill C‑31, but it is in the millions of dollars.

That money could have been used to build housing. Affordable housing could have been built over a longer period of time. We would not have to come back every year and say that there is a crisis and that people do not have the money for housing if we were to build housing right now, if we took the bull by the horns and if we addressed the problems together. Unfortunately, that is not happening. Once again, there is precious little to show for this type of coalition between the NDP and the Liberals. Once again, people are devastated and it feels like we will never see the end of this.

I will now address Motion M‑59. I spoke about this earlier, however, tonight is homelessness awareness night in Quebec. I believe that is in keeping with the theme of the motion. Homelessness awareness night is a very important event in Longueuil and everywhere in Quebec. I would like to salute the organizations in Longueuil that are preparing for this event. I will join them this evening as soon as my work day is over. It will be a big night and the vigil will be held outside. There will be singing, people will be participating in the vigil and there will be a big parade through all of Longueuil to raise awareness about homelessness.

As we know, the pandemic has been very challenging for many people. A lot of people fell through the cracks. Now we are seeing more mental health problems, which can lead to substance abuse and other problems, so homelessness is increasing and becoming more visible. There are organizations in Longueuil and across Quebec that are doing tremendous work. I commend the people who are getting ready in Longueuil, whom I will be joining shortly. Many organizations are doing great work. They are committed, they have empathy and they are wonderful. I commend them.

Let us talk about the motion before us. We should define what we are talking about before we get into the discussion. What is a visible disability and what is a non-visible disability? It is a rather specific concept. A non-visible disability is one that cannot easily be seen, one that might not be noticed if the person does not talk about it. This often means the person might have a disorder of some sort, but no one would know if the person does not talk about it. Still, the disorder might have serious repercussions on their quality of life. The concept of a non-visible disability can be so complex that it is often hard to even talk about one non-visible disability, which is why it might be better to talk about non-visible disabilities.

I was surprised to learn that, despite the received wisdom, it is estimated that only two in 10 people with a disability use a wheelchair, and 80% of reported disabilities are non-visible. Non-visible disabilities are more common than we think. Examples include visual or hearing impairments and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. There is also dyslexia, dyspraxia and a wide range of other illnesses. The disability can be recent and may be temporary. During a difficult period in life, a person may contract a condition that later goes away.

A person with a non-visible disability often has a hard time being recognized as disabled by others. Their disability is not acknowledged. The disability may be misunderstood by the people around them, who do not understand the difficulties the person may encounter while trying to accomplish even simple tasks. To the people around them, it is easier to see these deficiencies as character traits. Often, a person who appears impulsive, lazy, detached or irritable may actually have a specific disorder. In fact, people with these disabilities tell us that getting their disability or disorder recognized is the biggest problem they run into.

The lack of physical manifestations, such as a wheelchair, garners them less sympathy. We do not see it, so we do not feel it. The fact that the people around them do not recognize their disability can affect the person's mental health. If those around them lack understanding and leniency, a person with a non-visible disability can experience great psychological distress.

Obviously, non-visible disabilities can cause problems for the person's life in society and relationships with others. A person who parks in a spot reserved for people with disabilities but who seems to be able to get around normally may be criticized by passersby. However, perhaps that person has a chronic illness that means they tire easily while walking. There are people who suffer from chronic fatigue. That is a big deal. The same thing goes for a person who uses the washroom reserved for people with disabilities when they do not have reduced mobility. They will often get nasty looks, but perhaps they needed to use that washroom because they have a digestive issue or other condition. There are other disorders like autism, ADHD and those we talked about earlier, such as bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, giftedness and dyslexia.

As I have said many times, we do not have enough time to talk about important things in the House.

This is an important motion and we are going to support it. The government is not doing enough in terms of housing. I would like to say that we need to continue to work on this particular issue. The Bloc Québécois stands behind the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her meaningful motion. As we know, housing is important. For people with visible or non-visible disabilities, it is very important.

I would ask a question on a different topic, however. Bill C‑31 raises certain issues with regards to housing. The government is giving $500 to people who make less than $20,000 and put more than 30% of their income towards housing.

Unfortunately, with the current wording, 87,000 people living in social housing in Quebec are excluded from this assistance. They are low-income individuals, but they will not be eligible for this assistance.

When the federal government withdrew from housing in 1993, Quebec took charge. We set up programs, and because we acted in this area, now we will be penalized. The federal government will send money to the rest of Canada, but will not help the poor people who need help in Quebec.

I would like to know if my colleague would agree to remove the 30% criterion that is in Bill C‑31, which is an obstacle at this time.

Judges Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments by my colleague from Winnipeg North when he said we should move forward with Bill C‑9.

One of the things that has surprised me a lot since being elected is the way the government imposes closure on very important bills. It did that last week with Bill C‑31. That being said, I am also surprised by the way the opposition wastes our time sometimes. A few months ago, the Conservatives made us lose an hour to vote on which member would speak. I could not believe that anyone would do such a thing.

Would my colleague agree with banning this type of dilatory move that wastes our time and setting up a committee to clean up these unnecessary things? What does my colleague think?

Opposition Motion—Tax Exemption on Home Heating Fuel

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate. Indeed, our government is acutely aware that rising prices are being experienced around the world and that Canadians are not exempt, but at this point the hon. opposition should also be aware that carbon pollution pricing is not the problem. In fact, most households will get back more through climate action incentive payments than they pay due to federal carbon pollution pricing.

The federal carbon pricing system is not about raising revenues. All direct proceeds from pricing carbon pollution under the federal system are being returned to the provincial or territorial jurisdictions in which they were collected. Among households, eight out of 10 get back more than they pay, so putting a price on pollution is not the problem. It is a solution and an effective one. It is a market-based mechanism that actually was initially proposed by Conservative economists, but for the official opposition, it is ideology over expertise every time. They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada.

Today, we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. Conservatives vote against every measure our government brings forward to improve affordability for Canadians, whether it is the child tax benefit, pandemic relief, dental care or a temporary GST break. Now the Conservatives pretend to be on the side of those facing energy poverty. Canadians have been riding the roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years, and Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profits for oil and gas producers.

The only way to eliminate energy poverty, to reduce household energy costs in Canada and to have true energy security is by fighting climate change. With the volatility of oil prices and record profits for oil companies, Conservatives are proposing Canadians be chained to the oil and gas markets and completely vulnerable to foreign wars and cartels.

Because the problem Canadians are facing is global, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, our government has been steadfast in delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial supports to help Canadians through these challenges. We know that many are experiencing the rise in the cost of living through higher food prices and rent, and we know that this poses a particular challenge for lower-income Canadians, who are more vulnerable to these effects. We are supporting Canada's most vulnerable by doubling the GST credit for six months. That is why we have taken action to put more money back into the pockets of those who are most vulnerable.

Bill C-30, which just received royal assent on Tuesday, offers a perfect example of how we are doing this. By doubling the goods and services tax credit for six months, Bill C-30 will roughly deliver $2.5 billion in additional support to roughly 11 million eligible low-income people and families, including more than half of Canadian seniors. This will mean up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children and up to an extra $467 for couples with two children. Seniors will receive an extra $225 on average.

With Bill C-30 now law, these extra GST credit amounts will be paid starting in early November as a one-time lump sum payment through the existing GST credit system to all current recipients. Current recipients do not need to apply for the additional payment. They will receive it automatically. If individuals have not filed their 2021 tax returns already, they should do so to ensure they are able to receive both the current GST credit and the additional payment. Eligible Canadians who already received the GST credit will automatically receive their payments starting in early November.

I would like to take a moment to look at some examples of what this will mean to some of our most vulnerable neighbours, in real terms. Under the present GST credit, we know that a single mother with one child and a net income of $30,000 will receive $386.50 for the July through December 2022 period, and another $386.50 for the January through June 2023 period, but with Bill C-30 she will receive an additional $386.50. In total, she will be receiving about $1,160 this benefit year through the GST credit.

What is more, Bill C-30 is just one example of how we are helping the most vulnerable Canadians. We have also introduced Bill C-31, which would provide a Canadian dental benefit starting this year. This would be for families with children under 12 who do not have access to dental insurance and who have an adjusted net income of less than $90,000. Those families would be able to access direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, up to $650 per year, to cover dental expenses for their children under 12 years of age. It is expected that 500,000 Canadian children could benefit from this targeted investment of $938 million.

Bill C-31 would also provide a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This one-time payment of $500 would be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families, or below $20,000 for individuals, who spend at least 30% of their income on rent. It is estimated that 1.8 million low-income renters, including students who are struggling with the cost of housing, would be eligible for this new support. For the Canadians who need this support the most, the most vulnerable Canadians, this would mean new money for them this year, at exactly the right time. The measures in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 would complement previous actions taken by our government and are providing help this year to support those who are most vulnerable through the current challenges.

We have enhanced the Canada workers benefit. We will have cut child care fees in half by the end of this year. In July, we increased the old age security by 10% for seniors 75 and older. For post-secondary students, we have doubled the Canada student grant until July 2023. With these and other recent measures, a couple in Ontario with an income of $45,000 and a child in day care could receive about an additional $7,800 above their existing benefits this fiscal year. A single recent graduate in Alberta, with an entry-level job and an income of $24,000, could receive about an additional $1,300 in new and enhanced benefits. A senior in Quebec with a disability could benefit from over $2,700 more this year than they received last year.

Helping our most vulnerable through the current challenges is the right thing to do. We know our government can tackle affordability and climate change at the same time. In fact, climate action and reducing dependence on volatile global oil and gas prices set by foreign cartels and overseas conflicts are the path to eliminating energy poverty once and for all.

We know that a price on pollution is the most economically effective way to fight climate change. Canada's carbon pricing system is recognized by experts and institutions around the world, including the IMF, as being a model for other countries to follow.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the member opposite, my hon. opposition House leader, is that the government will continue to be introducing legislation that helps Canadians with affordability and makes their lives easier in these globally difficult and conflicted times.

With respect to the immediate term, I can tell the House that tomorrow we will turn to Bill C-9, which concerns the Judges Act at second reading. On Monday, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence with the second reading debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, related to COVID-19 response and other measures. On Thursday, we will deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, with respect to dental care and rental housing.

We also hope to make progress next week on Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

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

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-31 at the second reading stage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate your defending my right to be heard inside the chamber. I know that, at times, it can be somewhat of a challenge.

I recognize that we are getting close to having a vote on this and then we are going to start the debate on Bill C-31, which I am hoping to be able to share some comments on in a little bit more detail.

Suffice it to say, it is really important we brought in this motion. This is a good way for me to conclude this. For those people who are watching the debate on Bill C-31 or this particular motion, or those individuals who genuinely care about ensuring that we have a national dental program, something good is happening this evening. It is not about limiting debate. It is about responding to the needs of Canadians. It is about affording the opportunity for us to advance this to the committee stage, where there will be a great deal more discussion and witnesses and so forth.

With that, my final appeal to my Conservative friends and, to a certain degree, my Bloc friends, is that, because we are going to have a vote on this, I would suggest we all vote in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and talk about a really important issue, an issue that affects children in every region of our country. It is interesting that during this debate, the Conservative Party is trying to give a false impression. If we listened to the Conservatives, we would think there is no need for the program, that in most of the provinces, there is not a problem for children under the age of 12, that we should not worry because programs are in place. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the day, there are children in every region of our country who will benefit from Bill C-31.

I understand Bloc members at times are a little confused and it seems they do not support the motion we are debating now, but I think they are going to support the legislation. The Conservatives, on the other hand, do not support the motion and do not support the legislation. There is a big difference. If we did not bring forward this motion, the bill would not pass in a timely fashion. As my colleague mentioned, if we left it up to the Conservative Party, the 11-year-olds and 12-year-olds today would have no chance to put in a claim.

The Conservative Party understands how important it is, from its perspective, to filibuster to prevent legislation from passing. What we are debating now is not Bill C-31. We are debating the process that we have to put into place to allow Bill C-31 to see the light of day, to allow it to get to committee. That is what this resolution is all about.

Earlier this morning when the House started, we saw the types of tactics the Conservative Party used. It moved concurrence in a committee report in order to kill three hours of government business time so that we would not be talking about the environment, because the Conservatives do not care about the environment. That is the reality. The Conservatives do not want to debate Bill S-5 and now they have come up with a way to prevent it from happening.

The motion we brought forward is supported by the New Democratic Party for good reason. Because of this motion, Canadians from coast to coast to coast can be assured there eventually will be a dental plan, but first the bill has to get through committee, report stage, third reading and through the Senate. However, at the very least, we are seeing some forward movement on the legislation, which I believe is a very strong, positive thing.

The member for Abbotsford talked about health outcomes. This legislation is about health outcomes. Whether people are from British Columbia, as the member for Abbotsford is, P.E.I. or Manitoba and every other jurisdiction in Canada, there are children in need of the type of dental program that this legislation would provide. By denying them the opportunity to have this kind of benefit, children will not get the dental work that is necessary and, as a direct result, will often be taking up emergency room spots in our hospital facilities.

The member for Regina—Lewvan talked about working with the provinces on health care. I would suggest that the member talk to some of the provinces and look at some of the issues facing health care today. One of those issues is backlogs for surgeries and so forth. He should check out the number of spaces in emergency rooms.

When we talk about healthy outcomes, it is more than just putting smiles on kids who are under 12 and supporting children with a dental program. It is also going to help seniors who need hip replacements and individuals who need to use emergency services, in particular our children's services, such as the children's hospital at the Health Sciences Centre. These are the types of things that, when we look at Bill C-31 and we want to talk about health outcomes, have to be factored in.

The member for Abbotsford talked about how we should put the legislation to the side for now because of the issue with inflation, or there was talk about other programs. That is what the member for Abbotsford said. We need to read what it is he said. At the end of the day, he did not believe we could bring forward this program. He wants to show that we are treating the issue of inflation in an appropriate fashion.

Need I remind the former critic for finance, the member for Abbotsford, to compare Canada's inflation rate to other countries around the world? At the end of the day, what we will find, whether it is the United States, England or most European Union countries, is that Canada's inflation rate is lower.

When the member talks about dealing with inflation, we are dealing with inflation in other legislation. On one of the pieces of legislation, Bill C-30, the member for Abbotsford actually voted in favour. That is dealing with inflation. We are saying we are going to increase the rebate for the GST. That would put cash in 11 million Canadians' pockets. That would put money in our communities, whether it is Abbotsford or Winnipeg North. That would help Canadians in a real and tangible way.

I have to be honest here. To the Conservatives' credit, they did flip-flop. Originally they opposed it, but they did come and support the bill and I am grateful to the Conservative Party for realizing that.

I say that because people could be somewhat encouraged by it. I would like to suggest to the Conservative Party that it do likewise for this bill. If I was to request hands up on the Conservative benches from those MPs who believe that not one of their constituents would benefit from the dental plan and not one of their constituents would benefit from the rent subsidy, they could show me a hand or stand up on a point of order and make that statement, but not one of them will raise a hand.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-31. I have a few comments to put on the record.

Throughout the debate today, I asked some questions of some of my Liberal colleagues, and they have not really come up with an answer, so I am going delve a bit deeper into the question on the consultations that were done with the provincial health ministers before this piece of legislation was brought to the floor of the House of Commons.

I also heard a comment from the Liberal member for Vancouver Granville about how the government has done some of the best consultations with health ministers ever of any government, which from my standpoint, is a bit of a stretch.

Before I had the honour of being a member of Parliament, I was also a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. I still have some friends and good colleagues there, one of whom happens to be the current health minister, Minister Paul Merriman, of Saskatchewan. During the debate today, I took the time to send Minister Merriman a text asking him how much consultation had been done with provincial health ministers regarding the dental program we are discussing on the floor of the House of Commons today. He stated that they have had zero discussions at his level with the feds and there was nothing with his officials that he know of either. It has not been on the agenda at any FPT meetings.

Therefore, when some of my colleagues and hon. friends from the other side of the House talk about consultations, I would like them to make sure that what they are saying is factual and that they have had the proper consultations, because I think that is an important part of this bill and something that should have been done before we talked about a $10-billion program. This is not a one-time program, but an ongoing operational program worth $10 billion a year from here on out.

As we know, with inflation running rampant right now, one of the big things we hear from non-partisan economists is that the Canadian government has to get spending under control. We are sitting here discussing a $10-billion program, when this should be a discussion with the provinces because health care is a provincial jurisdiction.

We know that we send transfer payments to the provinces, but when I asked what the priorities for health care were, a member of the NDP talked about it as being one of the priorities. I asked what the top priorities in health care would be for provinces, and he also tried to put different words in my mouth. What I had asked was this: If there were a wish list for health ministers across this country, would a federal dental program be at the top of that wish list if the government was going to spend $10 billion? With a $10-billion price tag, is a dental program what they would have asked for? I asked this question because 70% of Canadians have dental coverage.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's speech was very entertaining, but Bill C-31 is a measure that is based in positive health outcomes for Canadians. Even when universal health care was first being discussed in this country, there were people like this member who did not want to see Canadians have positive health outcomes and benefits.

Fast-forward to today, and I do not think there is anything we are more proud of as Canadians than our ability to provide everyone in this country with health care if one is Canadian or a permanent resident. We have had challenges with health care, but I do not think the solution anyone would propose on any side of the House would be to do away with our universal health care system. It would be to invest more to make sure we have the doctors needed. Dental is a part of that type of system.

I have heard from many small business owners who have said that they would not have survived if it were not for the benefits this government provided, which the members opposite supported, for the economy and those businesses to survive. Does the member not have any businesses in his riding that benefited positively from the benefits that were provided?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

This motion and the underlying Bill C-31 are effectively an admission of failure by the Liberal government when it comes to the economy and fighting inflation. To be very clear, Bill C-31 is setting up a national dental care program focused on children; it also provides for 500 dollars' worth of rent relief, which does not go very far nowadays in most of our cities. That is what this does.

I want to focus on the term “relief”. Why is relief even required in the first place? Something went wrong in the economy, so that the government decided, “Listen, we are going to have to borrow more money and send out cheques, because Canadians are suffering and falling behind.”

Why are they falling behind? There is a very clear reason. Inflation is rampant. The government did not get hold of the problem of inflation in a timely way.

I will be the first to recognize that there are different things that have affected the inflationary pressures within Canada. We know the global community has suffered from a COVID pandemic, which has disrupted everything in our lives. Our lives have been changed, actually, forever by the COVID pandemic. A pandemic had not been experienced for over 100 years, and suddenly it was at our doorstep.

Sure, that contributes to inflationary factors. Supply chain disruptions that occurred, the war in Ukraine and weather-related challenges, whether they are drought and famine, storms and hurricanes, or heat domes in British Columbia, all contribute to inflation.

However, there is one big factor that is very clearly in the control of the Liberal government, and that is its spending and its borrowing.

Here is a factoid that a lot of Canadians are not aware of. Are members aware that over the last seven short years, the Liberal government has spent more money than all previous governments in Canadian history combined? That's going back from 1867 all the way to 2015. The Liberal government, in the subsequent seven years, has spent more money than all of those governments combined. Now we know there is a problem.

Some of that money was required to support Canadians in their time of need during the COVID pandemic. That was a crisis that required a government response, but much of that spending was not actually COVID-related. We know that because the Parliamentary Budget Officer said so.

The spending this government did has now accumulated a national debt somewhere in the order of $1.5 trillion. If the spending that has brought us to that point, much of which was not COVID-related, was effectively money that was pumped into the economy, then more dollars are chasing the same number of goods and services, and that drives inflation. Every credible economist will tell us that. If a nation's productivity is not improving, which in Canada it is not, but it is pumping more liquidity into the marketplace, that is going to drive inflation.

I challenge the government to show me the steps it has taken to discipline and to restrain spending, and the borrowing that was required to sustain that spending, much of which was not COVID-related.

That is the first challenge I throw out to my Liberal friends. I ask them to explain to me where the plan is to control spending, that reckless spending that has taken place. Also, by the way, where is the plan to return to balanced budgets? Where is the plan to start repaying that massive debt that we have accumulated over the last few Liberal years? I ask them to explain to me how they justify to future generations of Canadians this massive debt, in an environment of increasing taxes and increasing interest rates, that their children and grandchildren are going to have to repay. I cannot defend that to my children. I cannot.

What is even worse is that much of this COVID spending, the amount that was invested in relief and support programs, came through programs like CERB. They were poorly designed, so yes, fraud took place, much more fraud than should have taken place. The programs were designed in such a way that people who did not need the support got the support. I can speak from personal experience. I have had constituents come into my office to tell me they applied for some of the benefits, such as that loan program of $60,000 that they did not actually need, and that now they have to pay only $40,000 back, because $20,000 is forgiven. They asked why they would not apply for it if they qualified.

Why did Canadian businesses and individuals who actually did not need them receive benefits during the COVID pandemic? During the COVID pandemic, because people had to stay at home, some businesses catered specifically to that kind of situation and made a ton of money. They had never made profits like that before, yet they applied for these benefits and received them from the Liberal government. That is a failure.

Then there is a question that has to be asked about a government that cannot fix its passport system, a government that cannot deliver passports on time, a government that botches the ArriveCAN app and pays $54 million for that app when the private sector says it should not have cost more than $1.5 million or $2 million, and a government that came up with the failed Canada Infrastructure Bank and the CERB program. I could go on and on about these programs that were absolute failures and that the government could not deliver in an efficient and accountable manner. How is it that the government now expects to roll out a $10-billion national dental care program? Nobody in this country trusts the government to manage that, to do it in a coherent and accountable way.

Bill C-31 is effectively a band-aid solution to an underlying problem that is much more significant, which is a failure of the Liberal government to address the underlying causes of inflation. Effectively, Bill C-31 camouflages the real problem, which is incompetence on the part of the government on the economic file, its inability to understand that it needs to control its wild borrowing and spending because that is what is driving inflation, at least in part.

I will be fair, as I said at the beginning. Some of the influences on inflation are not within Canada's control, but a very significant component is, which is its spending. My challenge to the Liberal government is to get its borrowing and spending under control. Then it might gain some credibility with Canadians when it rolls out these expensive programs, multi-billion dollar programs that are going to saddle future generations with permanent obligations. It should not do that to future generations. Canadians expect better.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak to this important piece of legislation on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver Granville. This piece of legislation, which deals directly with measures related to dental care and housing, is going to provide immediate support to families across the country.

We have all talked about the fact that the global economy is facing serious challenges, which are causing real impacts here at home and around the world. Whether or not members want to believe it, inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. It has been caused by COVID-19, Putin's illegal and unjustifiable war on Ukraine and a variety of other factors. Life is getting more expensive and all of our constituents are hurting. Families are feeling the effects when they go to buy groceries and other staples.

In my riding of Vancouver Granville, affordability and the rising cost of living are top of mind. That is why the crucial supports needed in Bill C-31 will provide much-needed relief to Canadians now and will help ensure a healthy future for tomorrow.

Our government has put forward a concrete plan to make life more affordable and help my community and communities like it across the country get through these tough times. This bill, as we know, establishes two cost of living relief measures and provides crucial assistance to those who need it the most: first, through the creation of a new Canada dental benefit, and second, by providing a direct federal Canada housing benefit top-up payment of $500 to eligible renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

We know that oral health is an important marker of overall health and that access to good dental care is essential, but one-third of Canadians do not have dental insurance, unlike everyone in this room, and one in five Canadians reported avoiding dental care because of the cost. When we talk about meaningfully addressing affordability, ensuring accessibility to quality dental care is important. It is important not just because of the long-term benefit to our health care system, but because poor oral health in kids has an impact on their future. I became a dad recently, so for me, children's health, and in particular dental care, is top of mind.

Here are some facts that we do not often want to talk about. Children with poor oral health are three times more likely to miss school as a result of dental pain. Absences caused by pain were associated with poorer school performance, but absences for routine care were not.

This has longer-term impacts on children, and here is some very boring scientific information. Sometimes we need to hear the facts behind why some things matter, and here are some of those facts. Bacteria that is trapped by plaque travels to major organs like the brain. Rather than focusing on growth and development, kids who do not have access to good dental care end up having consequences when the brain is battling inflammation. Oral health has an indirect impact on kids’ cardiovascular health. Kids with poor dental care who participate in sports and other activities will likely also suffer poor performance in sports. We also know that high levels of disease-causing bacteria in the mouth put children at a higher risk of clogging of the arterial wall and higher blood pressure.

That is a lot of information about dental care, something we probably do not talk a lot about in this House, but if we actually care about children, and the facts and the consequences, these should be reasons enough. No price should be too high to protect a child’s health and development.

The Canada dental benefit would provide dental care for families without insurance and an annual income of less than $90,000, starting with children under 12 this year. That means up to $650 per child under 12 tax-free. That is immediate financial relief to low- and middle-income families right now. Through this benefit, parents would be able to make sure their kids can see a dentist, prevent oral health problems from developing and address dental care needs sooner rather than later. This is another necessary step toward establishing a robust, sustainable long-term dental care program for all.

What I fail to understand is why anyone in the House would not support this measure. We all have the data that shows that dental care is critical to long-term health, preventing everything from heart disease to cancer and from dementia to kidney disease. If the Conservatives care about the fiscal bottom line, if not the health of Canadians, then this should appeal to them because good dental care in kids saves money for the health care system in the long term.

The Conservatives often tell us that this would be bad for the economy, but this morning the CEO of the Pacific Blue Cross, one of the biggest insurers in British Columbia, was in my office. He was unequivocal in his support for dental care for kids because he knows that it makes good economic sense. Preventative care saves money in the long term and it makes for healthier citizens. At a time when we all acknowledge that we must safeguard the resilience of our health care system, we must also realize that dental care will help support the long term viability of our health care system and, indeed, the health care indicators of all Canadians.

I want to turn to the second crucial component of this legislation, the housing top-up. Housing is where we continue the traditions of our past and plan our futures. Everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. That is why we have made and continue to make historic investments to rapidly create more affordable housing. Our $72-billion national housing strategy, launched in 2017, and the $1.4-billion investment in housing in budget 2022 will go a long way to addressing some of the obstacles faced on the path to home ownership. This is a long-term strategy for the future.

However, at the same time, renters are facing increasing challenges today. From finding a safe place to call home to the high cost of living, affordable housing is becoming less and less attainable, and we need to step up now.

We know that those struggling with the cost of rent need targeted action immediately, and through this bill we are doing just that. By investing $1.2 billion to provide a direct federal Canada housing benefit top-up payment of $500, 1.8 million renters struggling with housing costs will receive assistance. This support is in addition to the $4 billion already invested to provide an average of $2,500 in direct financial assistance with the cost of rent through the existing Canada housing benefit. Crucially, this one-time top-up will not reduce other federal income-tested benefits, such as the Canada child benefit, the GST credit and the guaranteed income supplement.

Other key components of our plan to make housing more affordable include measures to double housing construction over the next decade, helping people save for and buy their first home and banning foreign ownership.

These are challenging times for everyone, but our actions now will undoubtedly define what our future looks like. By working together to make life more affordable for families and make sure kids get the dental care they need and by alleviating the cost of living, we are taking the steps necessary to be there for Canadians when they need the support most.

These are important priorities for our government, and I want to take this moment to acknowledge the hard work done by the member for Vancouver Kingsway in his advocacy on dental care for many years. Perhaps this could be the time that all of us in this House come together and vote to give Canadians the supports they need.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, a little earlier today, I used four minutes of my time before I was interrupted to go to Private Members' Business. I will now speak for my remaining six minutes while being mindful of the time allocated to me.

I talked about the reasoning behind supporting Bill C-31, which is really to make sure that we are not denying access to dental care, as well as not pricing people out in rental costs. It is about affordability.

Many of the things our government has been doing are to support Canadians because we realize affordability is a key issue. One-third of Canadians do not have access to dental care. What this bill proposes to do, over a two-year period, is to provide up to $1,300 for eligible children 12 years and under. The families will have to make less than $90,000.

I want to read a quote from the Canadian Labour Congress. It says, “Canada's unions welcome [the government's] investment in dental care that will give coverage to millions of Canadians - because everyone deserves a healthy smile”.

On the housing benefit, this will help two million Canadians and the support will be for those Canadians families making $35,000 or less, or for individuals making $20,000 or less, and paying more than 30% of their income on rental costs. This is in addition to the $4 billion we have put forward to help Canadians through rental support, cost-shared with the provinces and territories.

We are also helping with affordability, which is key here, because of the challenges that Canadians are facing financially today. Last week, we passed the doubling of the GST rebate for a six-month period. That was unanimous. Every member of the House voted in favour of that, and I want to thank them all because it will help 11 million individuals who file their income tax.

On affordability, the government also has the CCB, where we see nine out of 10 families receiving support. In my riding alone, it is over $5.5 million a month. That is over $70 million a year in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. I know it is a special riding, but every riding across the country, all 338 ridings, are receiving those types of supports. That is what is important.

Finally, on affordability, we are bringing in child care this year, which will lower the cost of child care by 50%. Those are direct supports to individual Canadians and families. It is so crucial.

Why and how can we do that? We are in a very good fiscal position. Let us not forgot that just before the pandemic, we had the lowest debt-to-GDP in the G7. Since the pandemic, we have increased that margin, which is very important. We still hold a AAA credit rating. That is very important.

Let us look at our economy. Canadians know that throughout the pandemic, we were there and we had the backs of Canadians. We were able to support Canadians through this global pandemic. We, the federal government, put in eight dollars for every $10 in support given to Canadians and businesses across the country. That is what we were able to do because our government was in a good fiscal position. We could bear the challenge of financing, compared to individuals and families, who would have been in a much more difficult situation.

Look where we are today. Over 21,000 jobs were created in the month of September. Today, we hold the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded at 5.2%. We have recaptured 113% of all the jobs that were lost. Those are big numbers. They are a strong reason why the government can move forward on topping up renters with $500 and bringing forward dental care to children under the age of 12.

Those are the types of decisions we need to continue to make to ensure all Canadians will benefit. That is the type of government we committed to being in 2015, in 2019 and in 2021. We intend to do more for all Canadians as we move forward.

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

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and give a speech for Canadians.

Before I begin, I want to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.

Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, is extremely important. I think back to 1967, when Lester Pearson said that no senior should live in poverty. On that principle, which is so important, in 2015, when we came to government, we wanted to make sure that we built the framework necessary to bring Canada forward as a strong country so Canadians would be proud of their country, which is contributing not only to Canada but to the world. Therefore, we brought in the CCB, basically under the principle that no child should live in poverty. That was an extremely important bill we brought forward that has lifted hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty.

In 2018 we worked with the provinces and territories to build a better pension plan, the CPP, for Canadians. As we know, some pensions are worth less as we move forward, so that will be a way of securing them as well.

In 2021 we brought in the child care bill, which has helped all Canadians but will also help the economy, because it will enable more Canadians to work and contribute.

Last month, in September, we brought forward Bill C-22, which we passed today, to support people with disabilities. It was again brought in under the principle that no person with a disability should live in poverty.

Today, we are bringing forward Bill C-31, which is about affordability. It is another very important piece in supporting Canadians as we move forward, and it will ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to succeed.

No one should be denied dental care. All members of Parliament have access to dental care. All Canadians should have access to dental care.

We are also ensuring that people are not priced out of access to housing. That is why we will be bringing a top-up support of $500.

Bringing in this dental support is a big piece with respect to affordability. It is another piece to help Canadians. Let us be clear. We can connect dental care with health care. It is a direct parallel. They work together to improve the benefits that Canadians can access. In case the House is not aware, one-third of Canadians do not have access to health care. Therefore, this bill will allow Canadians and families—

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

Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I have risen in the House since, I would like to mention that we have had a pretty terrible week in the riding of Barrie—Innisfil with the loss of two South Simcoe police officers, Constable Morgan Russell and Constable Devon Northrup. I want to thank, on behalf of the people I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, not only all of the Canadians who have reached out to my office but also those who have shown support for the South Simcoe Police Service family and the families of the fallen officers.

Sadly, we had another reminder of the danger that police officers face again today. An RCMP officer in Burnaby has been killed, stabbed, in the line of duty. On behalf of the people I represent, I express my sincere condolences to that family and the RCMP family as well. It is an inherent reminder, as we talk about many issues in this place, of the dangers that police officers face day in and day out as they put on their uniforms to protect our communities, not just in South Simcoe or Barrie—Innisfil, but right across the country.

I am rising today to speak on Bill C-31, which is the rent and dental piece of legislation the government has proposed. There is most definitely an affordability crisis in this country. We have seen that over the course of the last several years. Much of this has been predicted. In fact, Conservatives were predicting, through our finance critic at the time, that we were heading toward this inflation crisis.

The reason for that is the amount of liquidity that has been injected into the market, and that continues to be injected, by the government through bond purchasing by the Bank of Canada and through other government programs that have been announced, not the least of which is this, a $10-billion program. This inflationary crisis, which was considered to be transitory at the time, will continue. It is actually almost becoming structural.

We have seen that the Bank of Canada has had to increase interest rates in a fairly aggressive way to mitigate some of the inflationary crisis that is facing Canadians. It is facing Canadians right across the country, such as those who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil. I had a chance to travel the country over the summer and speak to many Canadians who were quite concerned about the rising cost of food, groceries and shelter, as well as the increases in the carbon tax and the impact they are having, not just on individual families, but also on businesses.

I heard from one restaurant owner who sent me a copy of a bill. The carbon tax portion of his heating bill was over $1,300, which is an additional cost to his business. Let us assume, for example, that he works off of a 10% margin, which is quite likely in today's competitive retail space. That means that, in order to pay for that carbon tax bill, that restauranteur would have to sell 13,000 additional more dollars' worth of food that month to pay his carbon tax bill. Those are the types of things that are impacting Canadians.

I got an text from a resident of my riding, Kevin, just over the weekend. He mentioned to me that he got his carbon tax rebate last week of $163. He wrote, “How is that supposed to help. It's not even a small dent in all of our extra expenses with gas for our 2 cars and heating for this winter.” I do not want to say what he wrote next because it is an expletive, but he then said that he has paid way more in carbon tax than he would ever get back. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that.

The majority of people in Ontario will be getting less back in their carbon tax rebate than they will be paying in carbon tax. That is clearly the case in Barrie—Innisfil and the people who I represent. They are disproportionately being impacted by this carbon tax because of the cost of gas that they have to put in their cars to travel to go to work and for heating their homes. We are also hearing about a potential 300% increase in home heating costs this winter. How are Canadians going to handle that? This is not just the people who I represent. We have heard stories about Atlantic Canada about the cost of propane and the impact the carbon tax is having on that.

We have asked the government many times to give Canadians a break and stop the impact and increases of the carbon tax, which is now $50 a tonne and is going up to $170 a tonne. This is in spite of an election promise in 2019 by the Prime Minister that the carbon tax would not increase over $50 a tonne. However, eight months later, there was an announcement by the environment minister and the Prime Minister that called for a tripling of the carbon tax.

This is not just going to impact families in a negative way, especially at a time when they can least afford it, but it is also going to speak to and impact the competitiveness of our Canadian businesses, such as the example of the restauranteur I gave. It is time right now for this government to look at the self-inflicted wound that it has created on the Canadian economy and to do something about it.

There were several times before the summer break when Conservatives proposed real and pragmatic solutions to solving the inflation and affordability crisis that is impacting Canadian families and businesses. However, in every circumstance, the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against. What do we have in front of us here today? We have a patchwork bill that is somehow going to solve a dental and rental crisis.

For rent, the government would be giving a one-time $500 payment to those who qualify, and not every Canadian is going to qualify for this. However, the $500 would not even cover today's rents across the country, particularly in Barrie—Innisfil, where it would not cover more than a week's rent.

Somehow this patchwork solution is the Liberal's solution to a problem they have created, which is really the problem we are facing right now. The Liberals and their NDP partners have boxed themselves into what I would classify as an ideological box, and they cannot ideologically align with and accept the very real solutions required for us to solve this inflation and affordability crisis. That is the problem we are facing right now, so they come up with these patchwork solutions.

On the dental program, I mentioned this last week, and I tried to table the healthy smiles Ontario program, which gives low-income people and children under 17 with disabilities the ability to get their teeth cleaned, have examinations and have dental work done. In fact, in my county, Simcoe County, the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit has a bus that goes around and provides dental work, programs, examinations and preventative work for students while they are at school.

Several times the health minister was asked how many times the provincial health ministers had been asked about this program? How many of them actually asked for this program? He would not answer the question, because right now, 11 out of 13 provinces and territories have a program for healthy smiles. In fact, 70% of Canadians right now are covered through a health insurance program.

We have heard that there may be consequences to what the government is doing, one of which is that small and medium-sized enterprises may look at not providing this type of coverage if the government decides it is going to do it. Clearly, through this motion, the government is trying to effectively ram a $10-billion bill through the House of Commons without looking to solutions.

What is the solution? The solution is for government to get out of the way and allow for the power of our Canadian businesses, the people they employ, and the products and services they produce in every sector and every region of this country, and that includes the typical wealth-creating sector, which is the natural resource sector.

Right now, we are seeing around the world the geopolitical problems that are going on because of the ideological attack on what has always been and always will be a great revenue and wealth generator in this country. We have the ability to supply the world with clean Canadian energy and see the revenues that come with that, yet, because of the ideological alignment of the NDP and the Liberals, we are not doing that.

If Canada is not providing clean Canadian energy to the rest of the world, then who will? Would it be Russia, Venezuela or Iran? Those are the choices we face to find the solutions to open up the revenue side of the ledger so we can pay for the expenses this government has incurred and the inflation and affordability crisis that Canadians and businesses are now facing.

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

Madam Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, there have only been 11 and a half hours of debate for a bill that will effectively cost taxpayers $10 billion. When I was debating Bill C-31 last week, I outlined some of the work from every big bank in Canada that talked about the inflationary impact of further spending right now.

If the government continues to spend money, the people who are going to be impacted the most are low-income Canadians. We need to get a handle on our spending right now to prevent further inflation and a further demise of the spending power of low-income Canadians, who are struggling the most.

[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.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a big supporter of Bill C-31. We are talking about $1,200 for dental care and $500 for rent subsidies. The member opposite, on one hand, is saying that the government is spending way too much. I think he said it was $900 million on the $500 subsidy. At the same time, he is saying that $500 is not enough.

Does the member opposite not think anyone in his community could use $500 to help with rent or groceries? Does he not believe any child in his community would be helped by having the $1,200 subsidy?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to represent the good people of Cumberland—Colchester.

I thank the Minister of Health for his speech, as he is always very interesting. Reflecting a bit on the minister's own language, the number in Bill C-31 for rental relief and the dental program is $10 billion, which would be funded by the federal government. I think that is a big number. Perhaps I will come back to that.

The deputy minister of finance talked about throwing stones in the lake, and I would suggest that we are almost throwing boulders into a teacup, which is, of course, going to overflow, unlike what she would have Canadians believe.

That being said, this bill is split into two parts. Let us speak about the rental relief part of the bill. My hon. colleague from Mirabel spoke about how Quebeckers will be left behind. It is shameful, saddening, disheartening and inconceivable that the average monthly rent in Canada is more than $2,000. The Liberal government's rental relief, which the Minister of Health did not speak of much, would give people a one-time payment of $500. We know that rental prices are up 4.3% since August and 15.4% over a year, to an average of $2,043 per month. That information is from Rentals.ca and Bullpen Research and Consulting.

We also know that all rental property costs are up 21.9% since April of 2021. Of course, this is due to increased demand and interest rates, which we know are fuelled by the Liberal government's inflationary fire, upon which we all know it wants to continue to pour more gasoline. Sadly, in Nova Scotia, my home province, the average rental cost per month for all property types is $2,453, which is a shocking amount of money for a place to live. In Ontario, it is slightly less at $2,451. A condo or apartment in Toronto is, on average, $2,855.

When I look at those numbers, it is not that $500 is an insignificant amount of money. It is certainly an amount of money one would not pass by, but it is not significant with helping people who are having difficulty with housing. During the constituency week last week, when I asked people in my own constituency about receiving that $500, the majority of people said it was not worth it. They wondered why the government would even bother, as it might cover one week out of 52 weeks when we look at the ballooning cost of housing.

Why would we not consider directing funds to things that really affect the sustainability of every household in this country? As we all know, and if we do not we are sadly living under a rock, groceries are up at least 10%. Let me expand a little on that. Fruit is up 13.2%. Eggs are up 10.9%. Bread is up 17.6%. Here is a shocker: Pasta is up 32.4%. Those are shocking increases that translate into a family of four having to spend $1,200 more to feed itself over last year. If we are giving people a one-time payment of $500, it seems like shockingly little, yet this program, as touted by the Prime Minister, is going to cost about $900 million.

We all know, very clearly, that the government has added more debt for Canadians than all previous governments combined in 148 years. I know the government is going to talk about the terribly high cost of COVID, but on this side of the House, we all know that this really is not forming a significant part of the massive amount of burdensome debt that is going to be left to my children, and my grandchildren as well, which makes me very sad.

We also know that the other side of the House has had significant failures on the housing file. We now know that people are spending over 50% of their cheques on housing, up from 32%, and we have the fewest houses per-capita in the G7. We also know that the average housing price in Canada has doubled.

We are talking about creating another federally administered program from a government that has multiple failures. For example, Canadians are having trouble getting a simple passport.

I can remember getting my first passport in the early 1990s. At that point, it seemed really quite simple. People were able to get a form that, as it was not downloaded then. I think they went to the post office. They put their names on it. They had several people in the community as guarantors. Then they would put it in the mail and the passports came back in a timely fashion.

Now, shockingly, the constituency assistants in my offices in Truro and Amherst spend untold hours advocating on behalf of the great citizens of Cumberland—Colchester to simply get a passport. They are now beginning to emerge from this pandemic and they want to go somewhere. It is shocking. It is as if it could not have been foreseen, that as life returned to normal and we learned to lived with COVID that people would want to go and do something but their passports were running out.

I find it just inconceivable that my office and the offices of all my colleagues have been spending such tremendous amounts of time on something as simple as a passport, and now we are going to entrust the government with another federal program. It is like asking why the government does not federally administer a program for all Canadians. That makes no sense when we cannot even get people a passport.

Two other issues that I think really underline the ridiculous nature therein are with respect to the immigration file.

I met with a gentleman at my office during constituency week. He has been living in Canada since 2011. He entered with a BSc and an MBA. Since being in Canada, he has obtained an MSc as well. This man has been waiting five years for his permanent residency. It is nonsense. He has been here, as I mentioned, for 10 years, working in Canada, functioning as a Canadian citizen. All of his paperwork is in. He pays taxes and he goes to work every day. Why does it take such an inordinate amount of time?

Again, I would suggest that all of my colleagues in the House are really able to fully realize that this is not a fallacy. It is the sad reality that people are waiting years to become permanent residences and citizens of a country in which they are actually functioning as citizens already. They are following the laws, paying their taxes, working and are contributing to the great country which we all have the privilege of calling home.

When I look at those things, how can we entrust the government to administer any other programs?

Finally, as we know very clearly, hurricane Fiona has been devastating to Atlantic Canada, specifically to Cumberland—Colchester. The way in which that support is rolling out for Atlantic Canadians and the great people who live in my riding is appalling. There does not appear to be rhyme or reason. There appears to be words attached to the amount of funding that will be rolled out, however, there does not appear, as we are sadly reminded daily, to be any plan behind how to get people that funding.

Trees are lying everywhere, and I am not talking about some alder bushes that have fallen over, which can be snipped with a good pair of clippers. These are big trees, and in the order of 30 or 40 trees. The government has promised money for these people to get their lives back together and, sadly, it does not have a program to roll it out. Again, I would suggest that asking the government to be a part of rolling out another federal program is really not the way in which we would like to see things proceed.

We now know that Canadians are paying more in taxes than in housing, transport, food and clothing combined. We are taxed, and I do not even know where it is, whether it is above my nose or eyes. We are paying significant taxes, and people are feeling this cost of living crisis. People are not able to afford to pay more. As we all know, winter is coming, which may sound like a bit of a cliché, as it always does. People are now worried about putting oil in their oil barrel. People in Cumberland—Colchester, who often live in single-family dwellings, are very much dependent on fossil fuels, and we know this is a concern for them. We also know they are worried about feeding their families, and adding more programs does not seem to make any sense.

Also, as mentioned in the House this morning, there is the upcoming payroll tax increases and the tax on tax, the dreaded tax of all, the tripling of the carbon tax. Canadians are at their breaking point, and the government continues to pile on more and more taxes on the backs of Canadians, which we know is an untenable position. People cannot afford this. People do not want to continue doing this.

As we also heard, we know that the government is often wanting to give with the left hand and take with the right, which is what we are seeing with the increased payroll taxes that are going to roll out in January. Then the tripling of the carbon tax is going to be rolled out against the best wishes of many. Therefore, we see the giving of $500 and the taking away of much more. The government is taking money in the form of payroll taxes and putting it into general revenues, which really does not make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

The second part of Bill C-31 is the proposed dental benefit act.

As I mentioned, the finance minister said, “This is like throwing a stone in the lake — the lake doesn't flood.” Of course, when we continue to add billions of dollars, it is like throwing boulders in a lake, which eventually we know will raise the level and could possibly overflow depending on the size of the lake. If we put a boulder in a mud puddle, we know that will take up all of the space.

What is the evidence with respect to this? I would like to think that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is a good source of information. The estimate is that it is going to cost $9 billion over five years. There is some other strange math that perhaps could be clarified, but it appears that year one is going to cost in and of itself $5.3 billion for another federally administer debacle.

What does the Canadian Dental Association have to say about it? Arguably, it speaks for many dental professionals in the country. It asks whether it would not be better to bolster existing and underfunded provincial and territorial plans as opposed to attempting to create another system altogether. As we heard, we know very clearly that at least 11 of our 13 jurisdictions have the ability to fund, at least in part, dental care for those in the greatest need. If that is the truth, which I believe it is from the research, it would make more sense and behoove us all not to create an entire other system, but, as the Canadian Dental Association would say, to bolster the existing and underfunded programs.

In Nova Scotia, for instance, there is a program that is fairly comprehensive for children under age 14. It costs $11 million per year. When we look at that, the federal program is for children under the age of 12, but perhaps Nova Scotia might have fewer children per capita than other jurisdictions. Just doing some spitball math, if there are a million children under 14 in Nova Scotia and averaging it out to the rest of the country, that would be $3.4 billion per year, certainly not an insignificant amount.

We believe that the CRA is going to administer this part of the program. When we look at these things, I do not think that anybody who pays taxes in the country would believe that the CRA will create a simple administration for this program. I fail to believe that. We know how complicated even filling out a simple tax return is, and that is going to be difficult.

We also understand that there could be claims adjudication in this. Early on in this part of the bill, it says it is going to be $650 a year with no strings attached, no questions asked, how much the fees are, etc. I do not know if we can keep the rest, but there is a thinly veiled threat that if people are dishonest, they will have to pay it back and there will be a fine.

We know that dentists' fees vary widely in the province of Nova Scotia and across the country. We know that in Nova Scotia a checkup and cleaning, for instance, could be between $90 and $240. We know that in Nova Scotia a filling could cost from $70 up to $400. Therefore, we know there are significant difficulties associated with that.

We also know, as I previously said, that multiple jurisdictions already have significant dental coverage in a universal sense. Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have more complete coverage for first nations families as well. We know there is additional coverage for other families that are receiving financial assistance in places such as New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Will the provinces be expected to continue the programs they have? I have some concern about what is in the bill that would suggest that the provinces that have programs will be expected to continue them, which really does not appear to be fair and equitable.

What do we really need to have happen? We need to understand very clearly that the funding for health transfers needs to be shored up across Canada. We hear day after day from folks who do not have access to primary care. We hear of the tremendous and insane backlogs that have been created by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is going to require significant effort and funding.

We know that the government has also not yet committed to funding the Canada mental health transfer. On page 75 of the Liberal platform, $250 million were committed and then in budget 2022, another $625 million, which, at another point, appears to equate to $4.5 billion over five years. I do not think this is a member in the House who would not agree that mental health is a significant, ongoing and burgeoning difficulty for the entire country, every province and territory, towns, small and large. The government has yet to commit to funding the Canada mental health transfer. As well, there has not been significant consultation with the premiers of the provinces and territories with respect to this bill. We believe that is what the provincial and territorial ministers of health would want.

We also know the government continues to run a significant deficit and debt. I have spoken previously and multiple times about the terrible debt burden the government is leaving future generations. I look at it like this to try to make sense of it: If I have a minivan and continue to make payments on it, why would I buy another vehicle? I do not understand that. If I cannot finish paying for the one I have, why would I want something else? I would just be adding to it. Those are wishes and desires. From that perspective, it just does not seem to make any sense.

The Minister of Health also spoke about a speedy passage, and I would respectfully disagree with the minister. We know the speedy passage is related to the Liberal-NDP coalition and the demands made to keep the government afloat. That is not a reason, in any way, shape or form, to impede debate on such significant legislation in terms of the cost of the legislation.

As we said, this is $10 billion. Again, I will use the minister's own parlance and say, here is a number: more than $10 billion. That is without the hiccups and pitfalls we know happen with so many federal programs. Therefore, could it be $15 billion? Again, these are boulders we are throwing into a teacup.

I need to be clear that this is not a question of the importance of oral health. This is a question of responsible government, fiscal responsibility and timing. This is about partnerships with provinces. This is about federal oversight and heavy-handedness. This is about the federal administration of a program, which we know has failed multiple times. We know the government is a government that is great at making loud overtures, but we also know the government is not very good at following through on action. We also know it is great at spending money and not delivering much.

It has become very clear over the last several minutes there is no way I could possibly support Bill C-31 in its two separate parts, which are the rental relief program, for which I quoted the people of Cumberland—Colchester, who feel it is not worth it and ask why we would bother, and the significant costs and even perhaps the lack of support from the Canadian Dental Association with respect to the dental portion.

I hope that sheds some light on the very important difficulties associated with Bill C-31 and the need to debate it further on behalf of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, since Quebec already has a rent support program, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has run the numbers. We learned last week that 86,400 Quebecers in need with a family income under $35,000 or individual income under $20,000, will not be eligible.

Quebeckers and Quebec have been completely forgotten in the housing component of Bill C-31. I am speaking directly to Quebec voters who need rent assistance. I want them to remember in the next election that today democratic debates in the House are being short-circuited and that their MP, the Minister of Health, has forgotten them.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives agree that oral health is very important, but the measures in Bill C-31 cover children under 12 who are mostly covered by other provincial programs, adding $500 or $600. Then there is the one-time $500 payment for rent. At the same time, the government is taking away more than $1,500 from Canadians by increasing the carbon tax and increasing payroll taxes.

Does the government not recognize the hypocrisy that it is taking more money away than it is actually giving? If it wanted to do something instantly, it could cut the carbon tax and stop payroll taxes. Will the minister commit to doing that?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order;

(b) when the House resumes debate at the second reading stage of the bill,

(i) the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight,

(ii) at 11:45 p.m. or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the next sitting day, and the House shall thereafter adjourn to the next sitting day,

(iii) during consideration of the bill at the said stage the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown;

(c) 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,

(ii) 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, 2022,

(iii) suggested amendments filed by independent members pursuant to subparagraph (c)(ii) shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(iv) the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 2022, 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,

(v) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House;

(d) the bill be ordered for consideration at report stage on Thursday, October 27, 2022, provided that,

(i) no later than 6:15 p.m. that day, if the House has not previously disposed of the report stage, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the report stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment,

(ii) if a recorded division is requested after 2:00 p.m., it shall not be deferred, except pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),

(iii) the bill be ordered for consideration at the third reading stage immediately after the concurrence of the bill at report stage;

(e) when the bill is taken up at the third reading stage, pursuant to subparagraph (d)(iii) of this order, not later than 11:45 p.m. or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred; and

(f) on Thursday, October 27, 2022,

(i) Private Members’ Business shall not be taken up,

(ii) the House shall not adjourn until the proceedings on the bill have been completed, except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the Crown, provided that once proceedings on the bill have been completed, the House may then proceed to consider other business or, if it has already passed the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion just read to schedule a time for passage of Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing. While I am, as we all are, committed to ensuring that this legislation is given due consideration, undue delay would mean that eligible families would have to wait until next year before receiving the Canada dental benefit.

The target implementation date for the benefit is December 1, 2022. Delivering a nationwide benefit is not a small endeavour, and many elements cannot be put in place until this legislation has received parliamentary approval and royal assent. Delays would mean leaving parents with further uncertainty about when they would get the financial support they need and deserve to seek out dental services for their children. I think that we can all agree that children should not have to wait to access the care they need.

I want to remind my colleagues why Bill C-31 needs to be passed quickly. This important bill was introduced by our government to meet the urgent needs of families dealing with the rising cost of living. Parents across the country are struggling to pay for their children's dental care. Inflation is a global challenge that affects all Canadians, but households are not all equally affected. That is why our government has moved quickly to make dental care more affordable for those who need it most, while taking the time to design a longer-term national dental care program.

Oral health is essential to overall health. If left untreated, oral health troubles develop into serious problems that are more expensive, more painful and more difficult to fix. Data from the sector show that children miss nearly two million school days a year due to dental health problems. Obviously, when children are taken out of school to have their urgent oral health needs seen to, their parents must also take time off from work to go with them. In fact, it is estimated that oral diseases cost our economy about $1 billion in lost productivity every year.

Some members of the House have questioned whether oral health is really that important for children. The fact is that poor oral health places a heavy burden on our children and our health care system. It can lead to problems with sleep, nutrition, growth and social development.

When access to preventive care is out of financial reach, oral health troubles can become exacerbated and hospitals and other urgent care settings may be required to pick up the slack. Emergency surgeries in crowded hospital emergency departments become the fallback. Dental surgery under anaesthesia accounts for one-third of all day surgeries performed at most pediatric hospitals for children between the ages of one and five.

Low-income Canadians are the ones hardest hit by the impacts of poor oral health. Children in low-income families are two and a half times more likely to need surgery for oral health concerns than children from wealthier families. We should all strive to avoid the need for such drastic interventions whenever possible. General anaesthesia for dental procedures can result in psychological and emotional distress for children and their families. These are things that could be limited to only the most complex cases if access to preventive care were more affordable.

This is what the Canada dental benefit is aimed at addressing. It is a simple upfront payment because parents know what their children need. There is no red tape and no hassle. It is just the means for parents to help their children thrive and be healthy.

We are collaborating with the Canada Revenue Agency because it has the expertise to successfully deliver such a program. When a person applies for the benefit in My Account, the CRA will verify information in its existing tax and Canada child benefit systems, such as income, age of children and the applicant's relationship to a child.

Simultaneously, the attestations and verification information that make up part of the application itself will be incorporated into CRA's standard verification processes to ensure the integrity of the program. This is a tested, responsible approach to delivering much-needed relief to Canadian families.

However, we have more to do. The Canada dental benefit is the first step toward addressing overall oral health needs in this country, starting with those who have the most to lose by delays. There is a pressing need now with the potential for lifelong impacts on some of the most vulnerable: our children. This legislation puts kids first in line so they can reap the benefits of early intervention for a lifetime. At the same time, our government continues to work hard on the long-term dental care program that will support Canadians for decades to come.

We have been debating important measures through Bill C-31, such as supporting Canadians with rental support and helping kids access the dental care they need. However, throughout this time, unfortunately we have seen the Conservatives play political games to waste time and slow down the important legislation that will help Canadians.

Our government has also been investing in families since 2015. One of our first actions was creating the Canada child benefit, which, since its inception, has played a major role in reducing the number of children living in poverty. Unfortunately, the Conservatives, yet again, voted again this measure.

We have made historic investments to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, starting with a 50% average fee reduction by the end of 2022. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are also against this measure.

On this side of the House, we will always stand up for Canadian families so that every family and every child has a fair chance at success. Why will the Conservatives not join us, stop playing political games and help us get this much-needed support to Canadian families?

In closing, I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this motion. Canadian families and children in need who need dental care are depending on us all. The bill was vigorously debated at second reading during six sittings of the House, on September 22, 23 and 26 and October 3, 5 and 7.

I am sure my colleagues understand that time is running out and that we must act quickly for our children's well-being. By scheduling a time for passage at second reading, we can send this bill to committee for further consideration.

I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this motion and will allow this bill to progress so that Canadians can get the support they urgently need.

Taxation

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, our deal to lower taxes for Canadians is very clear, and our plan to fight inflation and make life more affordable is very clear.

We have reduced child care costs; we will double the GST credit; we will provide a $500 housing top-up; and we will provide access to dental care assistance for the most vulnerable youth under the age of 12

This is what responsible leadership looks like. We hope the Conservatives will join us in passing Bill C-31.

Carbon Pricing

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, in the middle of a global pandemic with heat in the air caused by global warming, the residents of Edmonton Centre, in the middle of the last election, said to me, “Please fight climate change”. It was the number one thing every day on their doorsteps.

We already had a 9% reduction in emissions in 2020. The plan is working, but I can tell members that the number one thing that the Conservative opposition could do to help Canadians is to vote for Bill C-31.

Opposition Motion—High Food Prices

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

It has been an interesting day of listening to everybody talk about Bill C-31 and the reasons for the increase in the price of food. Going back to Saskatchewan to the riding of Prince Albert and going to a small town like Tisdale or Carrot River, or coming into the city of Prince Albert, one thing that becomes very clear is that food has definitely gotten more expensive. Whether people are buying hamburgers, steaks, potatoes or macaroni and wieners, everything has gotten more expensive. When they go through the process of buying groceries, they have a $100 bill in their wallet, but when they look in it after, they say, “Holy cow. Where did that go?” It is gone.

We have seen huge increases in the price of food. We can blame the war in Ukraine. We can blame a variety of things, but it really is the long-term policies of the government that have brought up the price of food items.

NDP members want to do a study and I agree with them on the study. It is a good idea. It is important to actually look at this and understand what is going on in the sector so we can have good policies to make sure that Canadians can take advantage of the great produce that is grown here in Canada.

We make the best food in the world. We grow the best animals. We grow the best vegetables, the best fruits, the best durum and the best canola. We have it all here. It is here in Canada. It is available for Canadians to take advantage of. We are blessed in so many ways, but then we look at things and ask how it can be this way. What has happened? What has made it so that it is so expensive to buy food when we have such an abundance of it?

Saskatchewan is a trading province. We have to export. We grow so much and we cannot consume it, so we export it around the world. That is when the trains run and the railcars show up. Of course, that is a problem with transportation and a problem with policy that comes back to the government. There are frustrations for sure, but there should be no reason to see this type of inflation in food. If we had the right policies in place, we would be able to see this scenario and be in a better situation.

When I was on the farm, I used to get frustrated because it cost me $250 an acre and the market paid me $200 an acre, so I took a $50-an-acre hit. It happens. The markets go up and the markets go down. In the good years, we put away enough money to ride through the bad years. Farmers are price-takers, not price-makers. We actually take our price from the market, so whether it is based on production around the world or production in Saskatchewan, there are many factors that will determine the price of grain, the price of beef or the price of a variety of other commodities. What we do is manage our costs. That is what farmers do in Canada.

They were the first to embrace zero tillage, which is one of the most advanced methods of growing crops in the world. That technology actually came out of the Sparrow report in the Senate, when we said we had to work on soil conservation and soil degradation. What did we do? Not only did we fix that, approve it and increase our organic matter, but we actually got more efficient. We produced cheaper products because we reduced the number of passes in the field. We became more and more efficient, and we took that knowledge and shared it around the world. However, we got zero credit for it from the government.

What has happened from the government as we look at this now? The government has hit us with a $50,000-a-year carbon tax. The Liberals say, “Don't worry. Be happy. Here is $800 back.” How can that be fair? How can that be neutral? Where did the rest of that money go? How do I take the $46,000 or $48,000 that I am short and reinvest it to become environmentally friendly? I have given it to Ottawa and what did I get back? I got tiddlywinks.

As we go through the process of looking at the cost of food, what happens? We get fewer farmers. We get bigger farms. We get huge farms. We do not have the small towns anymore so there are no thousand-acre farms. If they are not 2,000 or 5,000 acres, a lot of farms are 20,000 and 30,000 acres. They had to go that way because of the costs that were put on them by the federal government.

A carbon tax on food is immoral. Any tax on food is immoral and that is what the Liberals have done. Producers pay tax on fertilizer when they get it to the bin to put it in the ground. They pay tax on the diesel fuel to put it in the ground. They pay tax on the trucking to get it to the elevator. They pay tax on the rail to get it to the mill. They pay tax at the mill to get it to the grocery store. All that goes to Ottawa, and what does Ottawa do with it? Show me the mitigation the government has done with regard to the environment. Show me the bridges it has built. Show me the culverts it has put in and the lift stations. Where is the infrastructure?

We have seen flooding at historic levels in B.C. that shut down our transportation system. Where is the preparedness in the Liberal government to take on those types of things? Some were saying this was going to happen, and it did happen, but they did nothing to prepare for it. What did that cost our economy? What does their ignorance do to this economy and the abundance in this country called Canada, where we have so much to give?

We see around the world the war in Ukraine. We see that our friends in Europe could use our help again. We should be in a position to do that, and we are not. Why are we not? It is because we have neglected things here in Canada. We have not put in the infrastructure to take care of the export requirements for the variety of sectors that would be utilized in Europe at this point in time. Whether it is oil and gas, food or forestry products, we should be able to come in and fill those needs, but bad policy and planning by the government mean we cannot do that.

When we look at what is going on here in Canada and bring it back to the price of food, it is not just the price of food that is hurting Canadians; it is the price of everything. Everything they do, like going to Canadian Tire to buy some things for their kids, costs 30% or 20% more. When people get groceries, food costs that much more money. It just never goes far enough anymore.

Then we hear the government say that we need to pay more taxes, step up and pay for pollution. The Liberals are right. We do not have a problem with paying for pollution, but there is a problem I hear in my riding. A lot of people say they do not mind paying their share, but they ask what the government is doing globally to make sure that residents in high-emitting countries are paying their share. What is it doing to level the playing field so that when I pay for this on my farm in Saskatchewan, a farmer in Alberta, the U.S., China or Australia is paying the same amount so that the playing field is level? The Liberals have done nothing.

They have zero influence on the world stage, and we could go into debate on why that is. It could be a combination of things, like the trip to India or the trip to the U.K. that we just experienced. It could be the way the Prime Minister has conducted himself around the world. It would probably be better if we took away his passport, let him stay here and sent somebody else, because I think it would do our country more honour.

Let us come back to what this motion is talking about. It is talking about food; there is no question about that. However, what is hurting our economy and hurting Canadians is not just food. It is a variety of things they are experiencing right now and a government that just does not care or understand. When we start talking about the economy, those members give a blank look. They just do not get it. They do not seem to say they hear us and that they do not know what to do. They do not look at the options sitting in front of them, things like cancelling some tax increases for a period of time.

If we look at the tax increases the Liberals are proposing, the carbon tax is meant to change people's conduct with regard to the environment. We have just gone through record fuel prices in North America, Canada, B.C. and Ontario, and the prices are going up again. Should that not have had the same effect as a carbon tax? If the price of fuel is higher, I cannot drive as much. However, I live in rural Saskatchewan, and when I have to go for groceries, I still have to put gas in the truck because I do not have an alternative; I do not have an option. When taxes are increased on me because of that, the government has penalized me. When they take my $50,000 and make it $75,000, they have taken my ability to improve my operations to become more environmentally friendly. They have done worse.

Not only that, but I have been weakened in such a way that I cannot provide that cheap food Canadians have come to rely on. Who pays? The most vulnerable pay. Those who have the smallest paycheques pay. They do pay; they pay the most. The percentage of their food bill goes from 50% to 75%, so they do not have a chance to buy new clothes for their kids. They go to shelters and buy there.

If we look in Prince Albert and Saskatoon, the food banks have a record high number of people attending them. That is the direct result of bad policy, and if the Liberals do not get that now, then they are not listening. They cannot come back to Ottawa, go to their caucus and say they are dealing with a bunch of people who are in really bad shape and need a break, and then answer with a $500 GST tax credit. It sounds good, but it is not enough. We have to look at the other alternatives and levers we have at our disposal and bring the costs down. That is the same for farming, manufacturing and a variety of industries. We have to get the costs down and back to a relevant number so that we can compete throughout the world, hire Canadians and actually let families feed themselves.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential that Bill C-31 pass. As I mentioned earlier, each MP in the House of Commons has 30,000 constituents who would benefit from our putting in place dental care. That is each MP. If members of Parliament are really listening to their constituents, they will vote yes for this first phase, and they will vote yes for the subsequent phases, so we have dental care in this country from coast to coast to coast for all families who need it. That is fundamentally important.

The other thing he asked me was what more the government can do. The government can close the tax loopholes established by both the Paul Martin government and the Stephen Harper government. They could stop the hemorrhaging of $30 billion each and every year and $25 billion previous to that. Stopping that hemorrhaging means funding for hospitals. It means funding for schools. It means funding for jobs. It means funding for the clean energy transition I know the member for Timmins—James Bay is such a champion of. It would make a difference for all Canadians, so our next direction and what we have been saying to the Liberal government is to stop the hemorrhaging to overseas tax havens.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member has put on the record. I think of the children in Winnipeg North, or just people in general in Canada, and we all recognize inflation is in fact very real. We might be doing better than other countries around the world, but it matters here.

The price of food is of great concern. We all want to try to do what we can to assist Canadians in fighting inflation. One of the things we just did is pass Bill C-30. We also now have Bill C-31. Before us is a motion for it to go to a committee. The committee will no doubt be able to do a lot of fine work in dealing with this, but there is more we can do.

I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts on the passage of Bill C-31. Unfortunately, it is not going to pass, by the looks of it, before the end of the week.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me echo the comments of my hon. colleague. Thanksgiving is one of my favourite times. It is an opportunity to be with family and friends. As the hon. member said, we have not had that chance in a very long time, so it makes this a very special Thanksgiving. As the member correctly stated, and we should reflect on this, we really do have an enormous amount to be grateful for in our country. It is a special occasion to give thanks and to be with the people I love. I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family and friends, and with their constituents, over the upcoming constituency week.

With respect to the member's question about when we come back, I will be talking about what we are going to be doing, but first, in answer to this question, we absolutely cannot, and I will say it every time he asks me this question, give up on action on climate. While we take action to make life more affordable, and in a minute I will talk about what we will do over the next coming weeks, we cannot afford to make pollution free again.

We cannot allow pollution to be something that spews into the environment without consequence. We will continue to return that money to Canadians. Eight out of 10 Canadians will see more back. We can fight climate change, we can do affordability and we can do those things at the same time.

I am proud to say that our agenda to make life more affordable for families continues. It continues tomorrow when we take action, again, on the environment with Bill S-5, making important amendments to the Environmental Protection Act to improve and protect our environment, and at the same time take essential action to move forward with Bill C-31, which would provide families right across Canada the opportunity to ensure they have dental care, that this is not something, as life gets globally more challenging, that is left to the wayside. We know how important dental care is to health. I hope the member opposite will be supporting us in that as it comes forward.

On the Monday, when we return from our constituency week, we will continue with debate on Bill C-31, as I referenced earlier, with respect to dental care and support for housing.

On Tuesday, we will move forward with Bill C-22, the Canada disability act, which is critical support to help lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are disabled out of poverty. This is essential action to help them, and I hope the Conservatives would support that. I know other parties are.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill S-5.

Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Friday, we hope to make progress on Bill S-4, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, COVID-19 response and other measures. We also look forward to advancing Bill C-9, with respect to the Judges Act.

Last, I would like to inform the House that the Wednesday, following question period, there will be a really important opportunity to pay respects and tribute to our friend and former colleague, who we are all mourning, the late Bill Blaikie.

Opposition Motion—High Food Prices

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this topic. The inflation we are experiencing is a global phenomenon, and unfortunately Canada is not immune. My riding of Hamilton Mountain is not immune. We know Canadians are feeling the rising cost of living, particularly through higher grocery bills, rent and gas prices.

While this motion calls for many measures that the government has already done or is actively doing, we welcome the opportunity to highlight our work to support Canadians and describe how we will continue to do so.

The government is helping families weather this global challenge through our affordability plan, which is a suite of targeted measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support this year to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. This plan is putting more money in the pockets of Canadians who need it the most, when they need it the most, and without adding fuel to the fire of inflation.

The government's affordability plan is particularly targeted to help address the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation. Because of investments our government has already made in the last two federal budgets, many of the measures in our affordability plan are in place right now to help Canadians.

In budget 2021, our government enhanced the Canada workers benefit, putting as much as $2,400 more into the pockets of low-income families starting this year. Many recipients have already received this increased support through their 2021 tax returns. This enhancement of the Canada workers benefit is extending support to about one million more Canadians and helping lift nearly 100,000 people out of poverty.

We also implemented a 10%-increase to old age security for seniors over 75. That began in July this year. This is the first permanent increase to the OAS pension since 1973, other than adjustments due to inflation. It will strengthen the financial security of 3.3 million seniors by providing more than $800 in the first year to full pensioners automatically.

In addition, our government continues to work with provinces and territories to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Thanks to a historic investment of up to $27 billion over five years, regulated child care fees will be cut by an average of 50% by the end of this year.

We also increased the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and indexed it to inflation, making it now $15.55 an hour. Furthermore, the key benefits Canadians rely on, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, are already indexed to inflation. These measures are providing real and much needed support to Canadians right now, although of course we know there is always more to do.

Through Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, new legislation our government tabled, we are proposing to provide $3.1 billion in additional support in 2022 on top of the funds previously allocated in budget 2022 to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. This includes doubling the GST credit for six months, which would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support this year to the roughly 11 million Canadians who already receive the tax credit. Single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234, and couples with two children would receive up to an extra $467 in their pockets this year. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average.

We will also be providing a payment of $500 this year to 1.8 million low-income renters who are struggling with the cost of housing through a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This more than doubles our budget 2022 commitment, reaching twice as many Canadians as initially promised, and will be in addition to the Canada housing benefit currently co-funded and delivered by provinces and territories.

We will also be providing dental care for Canadians without dental insurance who are earning less than $90,000, starting this year with hundreds of thousands of children under 12, with direct payments totally up to $1,300 per child over the next two years for dental care services. This is only the first step outlined in the supply and confidence agreement to develop a national dental care program.

Taken together, here is what the affordability plan looks like for Canadians we represent. A couple in Thunder Bay with an income of $45,000 and a child in day care could receive $7,800 above their existing benefit in this fiscal year. A single recent graduate in Edmonton with an entry-level job and an income of $24,000 could receive an additional $1,300 in new and enhanced benefits. A senior with a disability in Trois-Rivières could benefit from over $2,700 more this year than last year. Simply put, our plan is putting more money in the pockets of the Canadians who need it the most, at a time when they need it the most. They are our lowest-paid workers, our low-income renters and the families who cannot afford to have their kids see a dentist.

Our government is fully aware that Canadians are feeling the effects of elevated inflation, particularly when they reach for items at the grocery store or go to the gas pump. Canadians can be confident that they have access to support when they need it the most. Since 2015, the government has delivered real improvements to make Canadians' lives more affordable, including introducing the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since 2015; providing 10 days of paid sick leave for all federally regulated private sector employees; and making post-secondary education more affordable by waiving interest on Canada student loans until March of 2023 and ensuring no one making less than $40,000 will need to make payments.

Our affordability plan builds on these successes and is providing more money to the most vulnerable Canadians this year to help make life more affordable. A tax system in which everyone pays their fair share requires actions on multiple fronts, including addressing aggressive tax-planning schemes, aligning our rules with evolving international norms, ensuring that digital service providers pay their fair share of taxes, and strengthening the government's ability to crack down on tax evasion. We are committed to continuing to build an economy that works for all Canadians and leaves no one behind.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see all of my wonderful colleagues today as we debate the opposition motion from the New Democratic Party. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

After reading the opposition day motion, it struck me that there were many things in it that related to what is called corporate concentration. As most of my colleagues know, I grew up in small-town Canada. I am the son of immigrant parents who worked hard, saved and provided a great future for their family and children. I went to university and then worked on Bay Street and Wall Street for over 20 years of my life. I am a big supporter of capitalism and free markets, which have lifted the tides and literally billions of people out of poverty across the world. However, I will also call out crony capitalism, excess corporate concentration and practices that are deemed uncompetitive and detrimental to consumers and individuals here in Canada and across the world.

When I worked in New York City, there was a point in time when there was an announcement that Canadian banks would merge and go from the five big banks, as they were referred to then, to three. At the time, there were arguments put forward that the banks needed to compete with the U.S. banks in size, and they were too small and needed efficiencies. The Liberal government, under then prime minister Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin subsequently, said no. When I think back to that decision, I think of how important it was for today. There are some members in the House currently who were members of Parliament during that time. Consider how anti-competitive that would have been for the Canadian marketplace.

When we think about corporate concentration today, it is why the Retail Council of Canada is working on a retail code of conduct for retailers. In other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, this is much easier to do because it can be done at the federal level of government and that is that. However, here in Canada, we have a fiscal federation and the federal government must do it in unison with all the provinces, as our Minister of Agriculture is doing. She is working prudently and expeditiously with the provinces so that we have a retail code of conduct to deal with a lot of the issues relating to corporate concentration in the Canadian marketplace when it comes to retail.

In a prior budget, we also introduced, under the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the hon. member from Shawinigan and my dear friend, changes to the Competition Act. These changes are related to wage-fixing, drip pricing, private right of access for abuse of dominance allegations and expanded information-gathering powers. For these changes, as I have argued for a very long time, we need to give the Competition Bureau more teeth and more resources to ensure that we have a competitive marketplace in a number of our industries. It is very important that we as a government undertake these policies, because corporate concentration is an issue.

The Biden administration actually set up a White House Competition Council, led by Janet Yellen, to deal with these issues, and I would say that we are treating it as seriously as the Biden administration. It is very important. It showed up in relation to our budget with changes to the Competition Bureau. If members go to the August 8, 2022, release from the Competition Bureau, they will find a wonderful summary of the changes that are being recommended to ensure that we have competitive practices.

Members can look at the continuum of our agri-food industry. When I first joined Parliament, we had the Barton reports, which were developed by our government to identify industries of growth for our economy. The agri-food industry was one of them. As many know, the agri-food industry is a continuum. There are farmers, processors, retailers and distributors, and we need a competitive place for farming. We need our farmers to be rewarded for the product they produce, and we need our processors to have the resources they need in terms of workers and so forth. Again, we need a competitive marketplace. However, we also need a competitive retail marketplace for our agri-food industry to sell in, and we have seen issues with that. The motion identifies the issue of the price-fixing on bread that occurred a few years ago, so we need to ensure a competitive marketplace.

Now I will move on to inflation.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to elaborate on the concrete measures taken by the government.

Our government is well aware that we are going through a period of high inflation worldwide. Canadian families feel the effects when they fill their tanks with gas and go to the grocery store.

For all Canadians families this is a tough period of time.

The fact remains that Canada is faring better than other countries.

With regard to the inflation rate, we are actually doing better. Still, we need to help Canadians, and that is what our government is doing. I am glad to see the opposition join and assist us in passing Bill C-30 and, hopefully, Bill C-31 with regard to GST.

I also want to point out to the House that inflation is a global phenomenon that can be attributed in large part to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and China's zero-COVID policy.

While our problems may have originated outside our borders, there are certainly things we can do here right now to help Canadians. That is why we are bringing in measures totalling $12.1 billion to make life more affordable for millions of Canadians in order to help them make ends meet and provide for their families.

Our government has introduced an assistance plan to make life more affordable for Canadians across the country. We introduced two pieces of legislation last month, specifically Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, to implement important measures to help Canadians.

Bill C-30 doubles the goods and services tax credit for six months. The credit for low and modest-income individuals and families is paid in quarterly payments in January, April, July and October, with the benefit year beginning in July. The GST credit is indexed to inflation annually, based on consumer price index data published by Statistics Canada.

Doubling this credit would provide an additional $2.5 billion in support to Canadians who need it most. Single Canadians without children will receive up to $234 more while a couple with two children will receive up to $467 more this year. The proposed extra GST credits would be paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time, lump-sum payment.

I encourage all Canadians to please file their taxes to receive this GST payment. We know that about 10% to 12% of Canadians do not file their taxes. I encourage them to please file their taxes. That is how they receive so many of the credits and benefits that our government provides, which help them and their families. Again, it is $2.5 billion, and 11 million Canadians would be assisted.

Our government continues to help Canadians. We will deliver $27 billion over five years for a transformative early learning and child care system for Canadians. I know it is going to help my family in approximately a month and a half when our little daughter enters child care. It is something great. It is high-quality child care.

The first province that signed on was British Columbia, in July 2021. The federal government's plan for affordable and high-quality child care was signed by the Government of B.C. It came into effect for people to receive reductions in their child care costs. Again, it is benefiting families in British Columbia, which is my home province and where I grew up. These are after-tax dollars that families are saving, which is a big help to those families. In addition, we are aiming to create 250,000 new child care spaces across Canada with these agreements with the provinces and territories.

As always, I look forward to questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, it almost goes without saying that we understand and appreciate what is taking place in the communities we represent. The Prime Minister often reminds us that as members of Parliament we want to bring the issues that are happening within our constituencies here to Ottawa and ultimately, whether in standing committees, on the floor of the House or within our caucus walls, express those feelings and the issues that are so important to our constituents.

It is upsetting when one gets a call, or is communicating with someone in one form or another, and they are genuinely and justifiably concerned about the issue of inflation. Food is not an option, and we understand that. I understand that, as do all members of Parliament, I would think, and we are concerned about the price of food today, which is why it is quite encouraging that we are having this debate.

I compliment the New Democrats for coming forward with this opposition day motion. Having this debate here on the floor of the House of Commons sends an important message to many of the individuals who might be exploiting the situation that is causing some of the inflation that we are seeing. That message is that we, as parliamentarians, are listening to our constituents. We are genuinely concerned about the issue of inflation and, for me personally and I know for many others, the issue of food prices.

We owe a great deal of gratitude, whether it is to the lobster farms in Atlantic Canada, our cattle and pork industries in the prairies, our salmon and fishery industries out in B.C. or the Arctic char industry up north. From coast to coast to coast, we have some truly amazing people. Through their efforts, not only is Canada provided the necessary nutrition, but we help to feed the world with quality product that is second to none in the world.

We recognize that, but we also see the difficulty and the level of effort our prairie farmers have to put in to produce our wheat, for example. It has to be a love, because often these individuals are receiving not much more than minimum wage, and some would argue even less than minimum wage. However, they understand the important role they have in our communities in many different ways, such as being primary in providing food.

I do not believe for a moment that our producers are gouging in any way whatsoever. I believe they are sacrificing in many ways. The constituents I represent who are doing the shopping understand that, at times, inflation occurs. However, they are concerned, whether it is with what they hear in the news or about the price of a product, about being taken advantage of. Whether one is a federal or provincial politician, I think we all need to do what we can.

We have recognized the importance of tax fairness from day one. We have a Prime Minister who, when we first came to office, said that we want to ensure that people are paying their fair share of taxes, which is the reason that one of the very first things we did was put a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. The wealthiest 1% of Canadians received an additional tax rate hike from the government. At the same time, we reduced the tax rate for Canada's middle class. Not only did we introduce those measures, but all of our Liberal caucus voted in favour of them.

From those two pieces of legislation, we have continued to support Canadians. We realize that we want an economy that works for everyone. It is important that we support Canada's middle class. It is important that we support those who have extra needs. That is why, if colleagues look at the budgetary and legislative action that we have taken over these years, including legislation we passed just yesterday, they will see that we have had a very progressive attitude in supporting Canadians. I can cite a number of examples, such as in the legislation we have before us.

We just finished passing Bill C-30, which will enhance the GST rebate for 11 million Canadians. They will have more money in their pockets to assist in fighting inflation, because of that legislation.

We have other legislation, like Bill C-31, which is going to help individuals through the housing benefit. I believe about two million households will have additional money to assist them in dealing with the issue of inflation.

We are indexing the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. In fact, on the OAS, because we know there is a difference of needs and abilities and additional costs for someone who is 75 or older, we are giving an additional 10% permanent increase.

Looking at child care, we have the first-ever national child care program, with the objective of making it more affordable. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in our communities, hundreds of millions throughout the country, in order to support that program.

We can talk about the dental program that we are bringing in through legislation, Bill C-31. That will again put money into individuals' pockets to ensure that young children under the age of 12 will be able to get dental services, which is not the case throughout Canada. These are all measures that I have listed, and there are more.

When the NDP talks about taxes, the reality is that we have budgets now where we have literally spent hundreds of millions of dollars through CRA to go after those individuals who have not paid their taxes. We want to ensure that if someone has a business in Canada and is working in Canada, whoever they may be, they are paying their taxes. Everyone has an important role to play in terms of paying their fair share of taxes. We take that very seriously, as I have illustrated virtually from day one.

Many aspects of the motion that the NDP has proposed today are already in progress. Some of it has already been done, but I believe it is a good motion. This motion could assist the agriculture committee. As parliamentarians, we want to do what we can for our constituents in ensuring that we are dealing with the issue of the cost of food. That is a good, solid commitment coming from the Government of Canada and, I would think, all members of the House.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

I am pleased to rise in the House and address this important topic today. The motion before us rightfully focuses on the impacts of inflation on Canadians and the challenge it is causing, particularly with food prices.

As my colleagues on all sides of the House know, there are many drivers of this global inflation challenge, including the war in Ukraine and the supply chain disruptions in the aftermath of the acute phase of COVID-19.

However, the laser focus of our government remains on supporting Canadians through this difficult time and ensuring that our supports are targeted to those who need the support the most and when they need it the most. We are also working to ensure that corporations pay their fair share of tax.

Today's motion calls for many actions, which the government has already done or is actively doing, such as closing tax loopholes and directing the Competition Bureau to act if there is evidence of unlawful or anti-competitive behaviour in the marketplace, as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did many months ago. However, our government welcomes the opportunity to highlight the work that we are doing to make life more affordable for Canadians and how we intend to continue supporting Canadians through a time of global economic uncertainty.

We introduced targeted support measures totalling $12.1 billion this year to help families across the country cope with inflation. Our goal is to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. That is more money in the pockets of Canadians who need it most, when they need it most, without driving inflation.

The last two federal budgets have helped to ensure that many of the supports in our affordability plan are in place right now to help Canadians.

First, and perhaps most important, the key benefits that Canadians rely on, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada workers benefit, the pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, are all indexed to inflation. This allows them to keep pace with the cost of living.

Then in budget 2021, our government enhanced the Canada workers benefit, cut taxes and put up to $2,400 into the pockets of lower-income working families, starting this year. In fact, many recipients have already received this increased support through their 2021 tax return. This enhancement of the Canada workers benefit is extending support to about one million more Canadians and helping to lift nearly 100,000 people out of poverty.

In July, we increased old age security for seniors over 75 by 10%. This is the first permanent increase to old age security since 1993; I was 3 years old at the time. This measure is over and above inflation indexing, and it will strengthen the financial security of 3.3 million seniors by automatically paying more than $800 in the first year for those receiving a full pension.

Finally, our government continues to work with provinces and territories to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Thanks to a historic investment of up to $27 billion over five years, regulated child care fees will be cut by an average of 50% by the end of this year. In my home province of Alberta, this agreement is already saving families hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of dollars each month.

These measures are providing real and much-needed supports to Canadians right now, but we know there is more to do. That is why we have been working so hard on Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Through new legislation that our government has introduced, we are proposing to provide $3.1 billion in additional supports in 2022 to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians.

First, we are doubling the GST credit for six months, which would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted supports this year to the roughly 11 million individuals and families that already receive the tax credit.

Second, we are providing a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit this year to deliver $500 to $1.8 million low-income renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. We are more than doubling the commitment we made in budget 2022, helping twice as many Canadians as initially promised. This will be in addition to the Canada housing benefit that is currently jointly funded and paid out by the provinces and territories.

Three, we are providing dental care for Canadians without dental insurance earning less than $90,000, starting with hundreds of thousands of children under 12 this very year, direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years for dental services. This is only the first step, outlined in the supply and confidence agreement, to develop a national dental care program.

These are not just empty stats. These programs would provide real support for real individuals.

Let me give some examples. A couple in Thunder Bay, with an income of $45,000 and a child in day care, could receive about an additional $7,800 above existing benefits this fiscal year. A single recent graduate in home city of Edmonton, with an entry-level job and an income of $24,000, could receive about an additional $1,300 in new and enhanced benefits.

A senior with a disability in Trois-Rivières could receive $2,700 more this year than they did last year.

Simply put, our plan is putting more money into the pockets of Canadians who need it the most at the time when they need it the most.

In terms of consumer protection, a few months ago, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry asked our department officials to use all available tools to review the variations in pricing and closely monitor any potentially harmful actions.

It is completely unacceptable to take advantage of a crisis to raise prices on consumers. We expect the Competition Bureau to act swiftly if there is evidence of unlawful or anti-competitive behaviour in the marketplace.

If there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry will ask the Competition Bureau to investigate promptly and take appropriate action.

We will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to make life more affordable for Canadians. When it comes to ensuring that companies pay what they owe, we take the fight against tax evasion very seriously.

The Minister of National Revenue and the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, continue to fight tax evasion in Canada and abroad. Thanks to a robust system of tax treaties and ongoing government investments, it is harder than ever to hide money abroad. The CRA is well positioned to find tax evaders wherever they are hiding.

The measures adopted in budget 2021 comprise many investments and legislative changes to combat tax evasion, including by closing loopholes used to avoid paying tax. There is also an additional $300‑million investment to improve CRA's capacity to fight tax evasion and to modernize Canada's general anti-avoidance rule. These measures will enable the CRA to use all the tools it needs to continue making progress on this important file.

Over the last five years, the number of criminal investigations has gone up by 60%. Over the last five years, the number of cases with at least $1 million in tax potential has gone up 189%. Over the last five years, the average fine by conviction has gone up 14%. Every time our government invests in the Canada Revenue Agency to go tax cheats and the people putting money overseas, we get multiple dollars back.

Our government is fully aware that Canadians are feeling the effects of high inflation, especially when they go to the grocery store or fill up at the pumps.

Canadians can rest assured that they will get support when they need it. Since 2015, our government has brought in real improvements to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Our affordability plan builds on these successes and is providing more money to the most vulnerable Canadians this year to help make life more affordable. We remain committed to continuing to build an economy that works for all Canadians and leaves no one behind.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. The Conservative Party sees premiums as a tax. An EI premium is insurance in the event of a loss of employment. A pension plan premium is an investment for the future. We will need this money when we are older. There is a world of difference between the two concepts. It is important to tell the truth.

We are taking action to help people. We forced the Liberals to pay for dental care for children under the age of 12. This year, families could receive $1,300 per child. We forced the Liberals to double the GST credit. These two measures are in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. People will be able to get between $250 and $500 starting this year. These are real measures that the NDP is putting forward. We forced the Liberals to put them in place, and they will provide people with practical support.

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has not failed. It has served Canadians well. I am getting heckled by the members across the way. Do they not understand the importance of having and respecting the independence of the Bank of Canada? Let us look at the years that it has put into effect sound policy.

At the end of the day, the Bank of Canada is recognized, not only within our borders but internationally, as an institution that has done exceptionally well for our country. Our previous governor actually went on to play an important role outside of Canada, in Europe.

The Bank of Canada is not a new institution. We are talking about going back to the 1930s. In fact, the very first building of the Bank of Canada was right across the street from the Parliament buildings, the old Victoria Building, where members of Parliament have offices today. It has been there since the 1930s, and it has been there for a good reason.

We could talk about the importance of monetary policy, like issues such as inflation. Let us remember the other wonderful idea that today's Conservative leader had on inflation. Instead of saying yes to Canadian currency and yes to the Canada banknotes that the Bank of Canada is ultimately responsible for, and our currency that the Bank of Canada monitors, what did today's leader of the Conservative Party say? He has more faith in cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. He has so much faith in it that he did not tell people to buy up Canadian currency; he told them to buy cryptocurrency, to opt out. He told them that the way to deal with inflation was to buy cryptocurrency.

Wow, what a brainer of an idea that was. Those individuals who followed that advice have lost 20%-plus, and some as high as, no doubt, 50% as a result. I do not know how many Conservative MPs followed that advice. Maybe the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did. I would not want to admit to that.

At the end of the day what I see are economic policies coming from the Conservative Party. Are they serious? Do we want to talk about contrast? Let us look at what the Conservatives are proposing for inflation. The Conservatives are criticizing the Bank of Canada. Do they not realize that for generations the Bank of Canada has been held accountable? There are different ways in which that is done. There are independent audits that are conducted and provided to the government. Do they not realize that there are reports? I will give them a tip. They can get copies of those reports to see what the Bank of Canada has been doing, to provide them assurances that they are independent private audits that are done every year on the Bank of Canada.

Why is this legislation necessary? If anything, the Conservative Party of Canada is doubling down on that bizarre idea of firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Does it not realize the consequence of the types of statements it is making? It actually hurts the Canadian economy. It plants seeds of doubt regarding confidence in the Bank of Canada, because technically it is recognized as the official opposition. It is supposed to be the party in waiting. Hopefully it will be many years, possibly decades, that it will be waiting in opposition, based on the types of things we hear coming from it.

Canadians need to be concerned about it. I can assure the members opposite that when I have the opportunity to talk about economic policy and issues, I do not hesitate to talk about some of the bizarre things that we hear coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. We need to establish and support the Bank of Canada as much as we can with respect to building that confidence.

Dealing with inflation, we just spent a couple of hours earlier this afternoon, and we are going to spend more hours this evening, talking about the issue of inflation. As a government, whether it is the Prime Minister or members from across this country, we are concerned about inflation. That is the reason we have legislation such as Bill C-30, which we were debating just an hour ago and which has fortunately passed. It took us a little while to convince the Conservatives to support it, but they did. Kudos to them.

In about an hour from now, we are going to be talking about Bill C-31, again to deal with inflation. The Conservatives still have not come onside with that one, which gives dental benefits to children under the age of 12. It also provides support for low-income renters. I would think they would want to support that too.

We could pass that and then we could maybe go on to Bill C-22 and talk about the disability legislation, which is again legislation that would make a difference and would help Canadians in every region of our country. Instead, the Conservatives are bringing forward bizarre bills like the one the member has brought here before us today, which reinforces statements that the current Conservative leader has put on the record with respect to the Bank of Canada and the lack of confidence they have in it.

Let us get behind good legislation and pass it, and maybe put a pass on this one.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway. I talked about dental care at the very beginning and I was supposed to mention it at that time, so I will return to that subject later on. I appreciate the intervention, because I did not officially recognize that I was splitting my time.

I will continue. One of the things I want to move to is some of the conditions we put ourselves in with regard to inflation and competition, and the lack that we have. A number of members have referenced gas prices. This House, in the past, with credit to Dan McTeague, a former Liberal, and Paul Crête, a former Bloc member, and this is something I worked with them on as well, passed a gas monitoring agency. This was supposed to be implemented under Paul Martin but it was not.

What ends up happening is a lack of competition in this country, because there has been a lack of refinery development. We do not even have the same reporting process the United States have. One of the key things creating a lot of uncertainty and some frustration among Canadian consumers is that we do not even have a good advocate for that. The Competition Bureau has some powers but very little. At the same time, gas prices are going up with very little explanation, and more importantly, less accountability, which has a cascading effect on our entire economy.

If we look at the specifics related to this, how many more refineries had to be closed in Canada? There was Montreal, Oakville and a number of others, including one in Vancouver. What was taking place was vertical integration in the industries, and a country like Canada is facing the same challenges when it comes to telecoms and others. Right now, additional charges will potentially be placed on credit cards, as well as extra taxes, where Telus wants to introduce an extra tax on Canadians.

All these things start to eat away at the pocketbooks of Canadians. For as much as we do, such as increasing the GST in this instance, it is going to be lost because of increases in services and fees.

At the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we looked at issues during the pandemic such as food costing and food workers. What is interesting is that the record profits companies were enjoying also included record bonuses for the CEOs. What is amazing, and we cannot do anything about this because of the lack of supports in our legislation, is that all major grocery chains ended pandemic pay for their workers on the very same day. That is as close to collusion as we can possibly get.

What was discussed at committee was the fact that the lawyers were okay because the CEOs could talk to each other under our current system. This comes from an industry the Competition Bureau fined for fixing the price of bread. They actually had to come to a settlement on that. The number one staple for lower- and middle-income Canadians, which is bread, was actually price-fixed by these organizations similar to a cabal that would take advantage of people. This is one of the problems we have with some of our industries, where we have this vertical integration.

I want to talk a bit about where we can find a difference, and that would be with Bill C-31, the dental care bill. The member for Vancouver Kingsway has done a great job. Often we talk about it in terms of helping the children, and later on it would be seniors, persons with disabilities and the general public. As the industry critic, I can say our health care has always been a standard principled point to get investment for the auto industry and manufacturing, even during the darkest times, when the United States, with its different states, or their federal government, and other places like Mexico were lowering wages. All those competitive factors that go against investment in Canada were offset by our having a public health care system that was paid for.

That is one of the major controllables we have. When we look at small businesses and medium-sized businesses, SMEs have really struggled. Now their employees, and even the people who own these businesses and often do not have any benefits themselves or have very basic ones, will have that relief. When it comes to labour unions with large contract negotiations, it will also open up the door and take the pressure off for increased medicines and costs that can create some types of labour disruptions because of fights over benefit programs.

One of the things I really want to highlight is that these types of structural improvements are more important in the long term than Bill C-30, which is something that is short term. The long-term investments we are going to get in this other package will be very significant.

I know from the CEOs, the investors and all the other different people, the labour negotiators, that those types of infrastructure pieces that we have, including employment insurance, which needs a major overhaul, are things that will get investment and keep investment in Canada. That includes research development and innovation. We have a terrible record for patent development to go to manufacturing, for bringing products to market compared to other parts of the world and for getting our university innovation together, but these are the assets that we have.

As I wrap up, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that Bill C-30 is not necessarily the biggest solution that we have for this problem of structural inequality, but at the same time, it is a measure we can control right now. The quicker we get the bill through the House, the quicker we can get more investment, more innovation and more jobs for Canadians, because it is a structural point that we need to compete.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 is a part of the solution for assisting people through inflation.

There is no one issue, as the member rightfully said, that causes inflation. We could talk about the war in Europe, the pandemic or supply issues. There is a number of factors to it. Canada is doing relatively well in comparison to other countries. Having said that, there is a need for us to respond.

Bill C-30 is one of three pieces. There is Bill C-30, the next one is Bill C-31, for the dental and rent subsidies, and then we also have the disability legislation. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the other two pieces of legislation, because they complement this particular piece and indirectly, if not directly, deal with some of her other concerns.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her interesting question. I think countries are asking themselves very important questions about the climate crisis.

The official opposition keeps harping on about the carbon tax. Our goal here, in the midst of the global inflationary crisis, is to focus on helping those hardest hit.

With respect to the carbon tax, the provinces have the power to give it back to people, and we hope they will work together to do that. Nevertheless, Bill C‑30 and Bill C‑31 are a balanced approach to helping people in a way that does not exacerbate inflation. I hope all members will support this bill.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

I rise today in support of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, no. 1, which would double the goods and services tax, or GST, credit for six months. It is one of the new measures we are proposing to provide targeted support to Canadians who need it the most so we can help them adapt to the rising cost of living without, however, exacerbating inflation.

Our government is fully aware that Canadians are feeling the effects of inflation, especially when they fill up at the pumps or buy groceries, for example. Inflation is a worldwide phenomenon largely driven by the effects of the pandemic, amplified by the zero-COVID policy in China and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Although inflation is not as high here as in several other countries and it has come down from its peak in June, we know that Canadians are worried. No single country alone can solve the problem of high global inflation. However, what we can do is help Canadians by taking tangible action to make life more affordable here at home. This brings me to Bill C‑30, which seeks to double the GST credit for six months.

Our proposal to double the GST credit for a six-month period would provide an additional $2.5 billion in targeted support for about nine million people living alone and nearly two million couples. In total, 11 million individuals and families who are already entitled to the tax credit would receive it, including roughly half of Canadian families with children and more than half of all seniors in Canada.

The GST credit is a tax-free benefit paid out every three months. It helps low- and modest-income individuals and families recoup the GST they pay. Canadians are automatically considered for this credit when they file their income tax returns and are eligible for it if their income is below a certain threshold. The measure we are proposing would benefit those who already qualify for the credit, and the help would be tangible.

In practical terms, single Canadians without children and single seniors, for example, would receive up to $234 more than they do now. Couples with two children, for example, would receive up to $467 more. A single parent with one child would receive up to $397 more than expected.

These additional amounts would be paid before the end of the year as one-time lump sum payments to current recipients through the system already in place. Recipients would not have to apply for the additional payments. All they have to do is file their 2021 tax return.

Bill C‑30 is part of the new suite of measures we are proposing to help Canadians. Another part is found in Bill C‑31, which I hope we will soon have the opportunity to debate.

This other bill proposes, for example, to create a Canadian dental benefit. This temporary measure would be offered as early as this year to children under 12 who are not covered by private dental insurance. Families could receive direct payments of up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, or $650 a year, to cover the cost of dental care. This benefit is the first step in the government's plan to offer dental care to families with an adjusted net income of less than $90,000 a year.

Bill C‑31 also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This would allow 1.8 million renters who are struggling to pay their rent to receive $500. It is another measure that I hope we will soon have the opportunity to approve.

Our government supports Canadians who are most vulnerable to an increase in the cost of living in a way that does not needlessly fan the flames of inflation. That is the danger in an inflationary crisis.

The incremental cost of new measures included in Bills C‑30 and C‑31 is $3.1 billion. That is only 0.1% of our gross domestic product. Therefore, we are proposing to strike a balance between fiscal and financial responsibility and compassion for those who truly need help.

In conclusion, what Bill C‑30 proposes is in addition to measures we have already announced as part of our plan to make life more affordable for Canadians.

First, the enhanced Canada worker benefit will provide three million Canadians with more support. For example, a couple could receive up to $2,400 more this year, while a single person could receive up to $1,200 more.

Second, agreements have been signed with the ten provinces and three territories. This will cut in half the cost of day care for Canadian families by the end of the year. This pan-Canadian initiative will result, for example, in savings ranging from $2,610 in Manitoba to $6,000 in British Columbia. For 2022, in the province of Quebec, which already has its own day care system, the government's plan will help create approximately 37,000 new day care spaces.

Third, we increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and over by 10%. This measure benefits more than three million Canadians and provides additional benefits of $766 for full pensioners in the first year.

Fourth, all major government benefits are indexed to inflation, including old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada pension plan, the Canada child benefit and the GST/HST credit. This means they are adjusted for increases in the cost of living.

Fifth and sixth, providing dental care to Canadians and making a one-time payment to renters who are struggling to pay for housing are two of the measures included in Bill C‑31, which we will be debating soon; I hope all members of the House will support it.

This is all in addition to other investments our government has made since 2015. I strongly believe in making life more affordable for Canadians, and especially in helping those who are most in need. That is exactly what Bill C‑30 does, and I urge all members to vote in favour.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and I truly believe that her concern is genuine.

We very much care about seniors. I believe the doubling of the GST credit will continue to support many seniors. I think if we manage to pass Bill C-31 it will also support seniors through the Canada housing benefit one-time top-up. I think that will be very beneficial for them.

The seniors in my riding of Davenport have already told me that they are excited about a national dental care plan. They know it will not go into effect for them until the end of next year, but they are already excited and very much looking forward to its implementation.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

It is a true pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-30 on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. For those who need a reminder, Bill C-30 is the legislation that, if passed, would double the goods and services tax credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year and would deliver targeted relief directly to Canadians who need it. It would make life affordable for many Canadians who need this additional support.

We are here for the third reading of this bill in the House of Commons after having considered this legislation at the finance committee yesterday. I am pleased to say that Bill C-30 was passed in record time at the finance committee by all parties. It was good see that there was unanimous approval and support for this bill, and I hope that the opposition parties will consider also supporting our other affordability measures, such as providing a targeted dental benefit and a one-time housing benefit top-up.

As members may know, our federal government has made it very clear that our first order of business for this parliamentary session is to make life more affordable for the Canadians who need it the most. We know that Canadians are feeling the rising cost of living through things like higher food prices and rent, so while inflation is a global challenge caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Bill C-30 would help families weather its impacts by putting more money back in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join it.

By doubling the GST credit for six months, this key piece of legislation would deliver $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors. With Bill C-30, single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234, and couples with two children would receive an extra $467 this year. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average.

Let us take a minute to delve more deeply into some examples of what it would mean for Canadians in real terms for the 2022-23 benefit year. I like giving clear examples because it allows people, not only those in my riding of Davenport, but also Canadians right across the country, to see themselves in some of these profiles.

Under the current GST credit, a single mother with one child and a net income of $30,000 would receive $386.50 for the July through December 2022 period and another $386.50 for the January through June 2023 period. However, with Bill C-30, she would receive an additional $386.50. Therefore, in total, she would be receiving about $1,160 this benefit year through the GST credit, and that would be super helpful for a single mother.

Another example is that under the status quo GST credit, a single senior with $20,000 in net income would be receiving $233.50 for the July through December 2022 period and another $233.50 for the January through June 2023 period. However, with Bill C-30, if it is passed, this senior would receive an additional $233.50. In total, he or she would be receiving about $701 this benefit year through the GST credit.

I will give one more example. Under the present system, a couple with two children and $35,000 in net income would be receiving $467 for the July through December 2022 period and another $467 for the January through June 2023 period. With the temporary doubling of the GST credit amount for six months, this family would receive an additional $467, so in total they would be receiving about $1,401 this benefit year through the GST credit.

What is more, with this change the money would be coming to them through a straightforward process. That is because the extra GST credit amounts would be paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump sum payment before the end of the year. Recipients would not need to apply for the additional payment. They only need to have filed their 2021 tax returns, if they have not already done so, to be able to receive both the current GST credit and the additional payment.

Moreover, Bill C-30 is just one out of two pieces of legislation that we have introduced already in this parliamentary session to make life more affordable for Canadians. The Minister of Health has also introduced Bill C-31, which would provide a Canada dental benefit starting this year. I was very privileged to speak on this bill in the House of Commons last week, because a national dental care benefit is so important to Davenport residents. I want to formally indicate the importance of this legislation passing in the House.

Just to remind everyone, Bill C-31, if passed, would allow families with children under 12 who do not have access to private dental insurance and who have an adjusted net income of less than $90,000 to access direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, up to $650 per year, to cover dental expenses for the children under 12 years old.

Bill C-31 would also provide a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This would be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families or below $20,000 for individuals who pay at least 30% of their income on rent. This means a one-time payment of $500 to 1.8 million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

The bills that we are discussing today, both Bill C-30, very specifically, and, as an aside, Bill C-31, will not solve everything. While they will not solve everything, as our Minister of Finance said yesterday at finance committee, they would provide real support for 11 million Canadian households, for people who really need the help.

It is important to remind the House that there are many other measures that would build on Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, which we have been speaking about today. These include measures like enhancing the Canada workers benefit. This would deliver $1.7 billion in new support to an estimated three million low-income workers this year, with a couple receiving up to $2,400 more and single workers receiving up to $1,200 more. Most recipients have already received this additional support through their 2021 tax refund.

Second, as a result of agreements reached with all 13 provinces and territories, we are also effectively cutting regulated child care fees in half, on average, for families in Canada by the end of this year. This Canada-wide plan means savings for families from $2,610 in Manitoba to $6,000 in British Columbia in 2022, and an average child care fee of just $10 a day for all regulated child care spaces across Canada by 2025-26.

We have also introduced a 10% increase to the old age security pension for seniors 75 years and older, which began in July 2022 and which would provide more than $800 in new support to full pensioners over the first year and increase benefits for more than three million seniors.

We are also providing support for students by doubling the Canada student grant amount until July 2023 and by waiving interest on Canada student loans through to March 2023.

Taken together, our federal government's affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to Canadians who need it the most with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation.

We will continue to strike a balance between delivering support, where and when it is needed the most, and maintaining the discipline that has given Canada the strongest fiscal position in the G7.

In conclusion, I know that Canadians are counting on parliamentarians to make the support of Bill C-30 a reality, and I would encourage my colleagues on all sides to support the immediate adoption of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, no. 1, so that we could continue to make life more affordable for Canadians who need it the most.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Whitby, for sharing his time with me. I am honoured to stand here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation and say meegwetch.

This has been a somewhat frustrating debate, as many speakers have noted. There is unanimous support in this place for Bill C-30, yet there are things we want to debate. For my part, I would just like to say that I support Bill C-30 because Canadians need help. Raising and doubling the GST rebate that would go to lowest-income Canadians would amount to $2.5 billion in total, and it would reach, in small amounts, 11 million Canadians. That is not something to sneeze at. People want help, and as my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said moments ago, $500 is not a small amount of money when one is really up against it. It will make a difference, and that is why I will vote for this.

We also have Bill C-31 that would provide a one-time only payment of $500 to help low-income renters as well as begin the really important work toward including dental care in our health care system, an idea originally proposed by the Green Party of Canada.

There is nothing not to like in this bill, but there is much to talk about because it does not address really large problems like what happens if we go into a recession. What if this inflationary problem is not solved by what the Bank of Canada has done in raising rates? The rate hikes have been quite dramatic. What if the rate hikes push us into a recession? That is a reasonable thing to ask, since that has happened many times before. As a matter of fact, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' economist David Macdonald, every time over the last 60 years that rate hikes have been used to address inflation, recession has occurred.

This really is a very difficult situation because we must also face international crises, including the climate change crisis, the pandemic, and the war between Russia and Ukraine.

These are complex problems, but those debating in this place, and for obvious reasons political parties, want short, simple bumper sticker solutions that convey support for their party by being definitive and being clear. It reminds me so much of the debate in this place over Bill C-30 or Bill C-31. It also reminds me of a somewhat famous quote from H.L. Mencken, a great journalist who wrote that for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. We see that here so often in what we hear.

I will say what the complexities are and how they are not respected in this debate. This is not something that we can say is a simple problem. Even inflation in its traditional sense is not really simple, but this is not simple inflation. We have many factors. We thought initially that if we saw inflation in some prices of goods post-COVID that it would be in response to the pent-up spending desires of Canadians, who were not able to spend because COVID kept people from enjoying themselves, basically. The same thing happened after the Spanish influenza epidemic in the early part of the 20th century. The roaring twenties were a response to a very dismal period of people being locked down and to the massive number of deaths, in the millions, from the Spanish flu.

We were also told that we would see some initial inflation but it would be transitory and short-lived. That seemed to be holding true until February, when Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. That led to different costs and real costs rising because of the enormous impact it had immediately on the price of oil. Then there are climate impacts. Climate impacts are inflationary. It is important for my friends across the way to recognize that climate impacts have increased drought, have increased food prices and have increased the high price of some specific ingredients that make a difference in our shopping carts. All of these things combine to create what we are now experiencing in higher prices.

The response we get to this in terms of the interest rates is a debate in this place about how much money the Liberals spent in dealing with COVID and how they were just printing money. I would say this to my Conservative colleagues: I have no doubt that if Stephen Harper had been prime minister through a pandemic, he would have done exactly the same things the current Prime Minister did, because every economy in the G20 followed the same playbook. Every economy in the OECD was taking the same advice. Central bankers were using quantitative easing, a term I learned from the great former finance minister Jim Flaherty, who used quantitative easing. We were doing exactly what all the other economies around the world were doing, with virtually 0% interest rates and quantitative easing to get billions and trillions of dollars of money flowing into the global economy to confront the pandemic and try to save lives. These were complex issues, for sure, but they are simplified.

What I hear from the Conservative benches as we debate Bill C-30 is about inflation and the pain we are undergoing, to which Bill C-30 provides a band-aid. A band-aid is good when one is bleeding, by the way, but it is not a long-term solution. In this debate on Bill C-30, we have been hearing from the Conservatives that all the pain Canadians are experiencing is from the failures of the current government, that inflation is the fault of the current government and that global supply chain problems are the fault of the current government. I suppose the war in Ukraine, by extension, since that has been the proximate cause of the biggest price hikes in energy supply, is the fault of the government as well.

Disproportionately in this debate, the Conservative benches want to blame it for a very small increase, at 2¢ a tonne, in the price on carbon. That affects only some provinces. We have heard more than three times what the impact is. It is minuscule in the context of what we are experiencing and the real pain Canadians are feeling.

The simplification on the Liberal side is to ask us to compare Canada to other countries, as we are doing so much better than them. By the way, we have talked about our debt-to-GDP ratio, but just look at the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio. It is over 100%, so we are doing better than the United States by quite a lot. However, a single mother who is trying to buy groceries does not really care that overall Canada is doing better on our debt-to-GDP ratio. That is not top of mind. She really wants to know that somebody has her back, as the Liberals like to claim they do.

Both camps, to varying degrees, have oversimplified the problems we are facing. In doing so, I do not think we adequately respect the intelligence of thoughtful Canadians, who are more than prepared to understand that this is a global problem and that we are not the only country experiencing inflation. In fact, some of the countries that are experiencing inflation that is much worse than ours have no carbon price and have not gone through the same policy instruments. This is not a specific problem for which we can blame the Liberals. I will blame the Liberals for many things, but I cannot blame them for this inflation.

When we look at what this is about, I want to refer my colleagues to a book that I think is prescient and worth looking at. It came out in 2005. It is by James Howard Kunstler, who is a best-selling author. The book is called The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. In it, he pointed out that when the price of gas and oil becomes constrained by real events, we have a real challenge to what we presume to be our right to a certain standard of living, to a certain lifestyle, for lack of a better word.

We can look at the real costs of everything. I am going to quote Andrew Nikiforuk, writing in The Tyee and referring to The Long Emergency: “Since April 2020 the cost of oil has climbed five-fold. The price of coal, the cheapest of fossil fuels, has hit new highs by nearly 150 per cent.” These are real costs that really affect prices.

What do we need to do if we are serious? We do not need band-aid solutions. We need long-term solutions, anticipating that we may well be in a recession. Let us look at a wealth tax. We need to go back and look at a general wealth tax, but specifically let us look at a windfall tax on oil and gas profits. Oil and gas profits due to the war in Ukraine have had unbelievable gains.

I have come to the end of my time. We need to tax back.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this important legislation today. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key priority for our government. The pandemic has been tough for everyone, and unfortunately one of the consequences has been inflation. This worldwide inflation problem has made affordability a real concern for many Canadians, including in my riding of Whitby, and especially for the most vulnerable.

We understand that there are those who are going through hard times, but this government has real solutions to the cost of living struggles of many Canadians. Overall, the government’s affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the Canadians who need it most, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation.

The government’s affordability plan includes an enhanced Canada workers benefit that will put up to $2,400 more into the pockets of low-income families. There is a 10% increase in old age security for seniors over 75, which will provide more than $800 in new support to full pensioners over the first year and increase benefits for more than three million seniors.

We are also cutting regulated child care fees in half by the end of this year. We have doubled the Canada student grant until July 2023 and are waiving interest on Canada student loans through to March 2023. The main support programs, including the Canada child benefit, the GST tax credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, are all indexed to inflation so those will be increasing as well.

Two weeks ago, the government tabled two important pieces of legislation in Parliament. The bills represent the latest suite of measures to support Canadians with the rising cost of living without adding to inflation. Bill C-31 would make it so that up to half a million children under 12 would be able to see a dentist, and low-income renters would receive a little extra breathing room with a $500 payment to help with the cost of rent.

The bill we are discussing today is Bill C-30, which would double the GST tax credit for six months. Doubling the GST credit would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to the roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit. That includes about nine million single individuals, almost two million couples and more than half of all Canadian seniors. Just think about that. Over half of all Canadian seniors are going to be supported by this measure.

The GST tax credit is indexed to inflation on an annual basis. For the July 2022 to June 2023 benefit year, the value of the GST credit grew by 2.4%. However, because these increases are based on the inflation rate from the prior year, the sharp rise in inflation in 2022 is not yet reflected in the GST credit payments that Canadians are currently receiving. This is why the extra top-up is the right thing to do at this particular time, because Canadians are not going to get the benefit of an increased GST tax credit payment until the following year. It is a good thing that we are topping it up.

Single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234, and seniors would receive an extra $225 on average. I have another example of how it would work. A single mother with one child and $30,000 in net income will receive $386.50 for the July through December 2022 period, and another payment of the same amount for the January through June 2023 period under the current GST credit. With the temporary doubling of the GST credit amounts for six months, she would receive an additional $386.50. In total, she would be receiving about $1,160 this benefit year through the GST credit.

A couple with two children and $35,000 in net income would receive $467 for the July through December 2022 period and another $467 for the January through June 2023 period under the current GST credit. With the temporary doubling of the GST credit amounts for six months, this family would receive an additional $467. In total, it would receive $1,401 this benefit year through the GST credit.

The proposed extra GST credit amounts would be paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump sum payment before the end of the year, pending, of course, the adoption of the legislation. This highlights the importance of getting this done as quickly as possible, as we all can agree Canadians are feeling the pressures of inflation and the cost of living increases.

Importantly, recipients would not need to apply for the additional payment, but should make sure to file their 2021 tax returns, if they have not done so already, to be able to receive the current credit and the additional payment. Bill C-30 and the other important measures I mentioned would deliver targeted support to the Canadians who need it most without adding unnecessary fuel to the fire and allow inflation to become entrenched. That is a major concern, and we do not want inflation to become entrenched. That is something that would in fact be counterproductive and make life more expensive for everyone for years to come.

However, we cannot compensate every single Canadian for rising costs driven by global events. To do so would make inflation worse. Bill C-30 is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion. This support is the right thing to do at the right time. Even as we deal with the very real challenges that the global economy is facing right now, it is important for us to take real comfort in the reality that Canada has a very strong economic foundation as we face these global challenges.

Canada has the lowest deficit this year in the G7. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and Canada’s AAA credit rating was reaffirmed this year by Moody's, S&P and DBRS. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that Canada’s recovery will be the second fastest in the G7 this year and next. That is a pretty good track record.

The government’s affordability plan has already been putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians who need it most. We will continue to provide timely support where it is needed most, all while maintaining fiscal discipline.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie for keeping the focus on Canadians in his speech.

The Liberal member across the way was talking about Bill C-31, not Bill C-30. The Parliamentary Budget Officer will be doing an update next week on the cost of that, so I think it is important that we all wait and get that costing before we have a fair analysis of Bill C-31.

I want to reiterate the point that the member made that the government did not use the summer to do the hard work to find offsetting spending cuts so it could avoid the criticism of being more inflationary. I would like him to comment on how important it is that Canadians not only deserve support, but also have a government that does not fuel inflation and actually fights it.

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

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I think it is important that we recognize that we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that will give 11 million people in Canada a break with respect to the GST and put more money into their pockets. Every member of the House of Commons today is supporting Bill C-30. We could send a very strong and powerful message to Canadians and pass this legislation. The speech the member gave could have been given on Bill C-31, which is a bill the Conservatives oppose.

I wonder if the member could comment on this from his perspective. If he sees a bill he likes and he wants to help Canadians, should we pass it through and have more debate on Bill C-31, so we can find out what the differences are between the two sides, the governing and opposition parties. Would he agree?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon to all my colleagues here.

I would be remiss if I did not say that for these last few weeks and for a very long time, my heart, my thoughts and my prayers are with the Iranian Canadian community and with Iranians in Iran. Obviously, we want all countries to abide by the principles of human rights, democracy and freedom. What we are seeing now in Iran is that young people, this young woman and many women there are fighting for their rights. We are in full support of them. I have a very vibrant, growing and generous Persian community in the city of Vaughan and in York Region. I have spoken with many of them, and I want them to know that I fully support them, that I fully stand beside them, and that we are there with them.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this bill. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key priority for this government, and I would like to highlight some of the measures we are taking to address the cost of living.

The bills tabled in Parliament on Tuesday represent the latest suite of measures to support Canadians with the rising cost of living without adding fuel to the fire of inflation.

The government's affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the Canadians who need it most, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation.

It has been a tough couple of years for all of us, with COVID-19, inflation and the war in Ukraine. It seems like we have to overcome one thing after another, but there are always better days ahead. The pandemic has been, we hope, a once-in-a-generation crisis, but like any major crisis, this one has aftershocks, and inflation is chief among them.

Inflation is not a made-in-Canada challenge. It is actually less severe here than it is among our peers. Nonetheless, we must assist Canadians. Inflation has made the cost of living into a real struggle for many Canadians, including residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and especially for the most vulnerable: our seniors, folks on fixed incomes and working Canadians. We understand that there are people going through hard times, so Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, would double the goods and services tax credit for six months. Bill C-31, the cost of living relief act, no. 2, would enact two important measures: the Canada dental benefit and a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit.

Doubling the GST credit for six months would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to the roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.

Single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234, and couples with two children would receive up to an extra $467 this year. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average.

The proposed extra GST credit amounts would be paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump-sum payment before the end of this year, pending the adoption of the legislation. Importantly, recipients would not need to apply for the additional payment, but they need to file their 2021 tax return, if they have not done so already, to be able to receive both the current credit and the additional payment. I am happy to say that it is estimated that 11 million individuals and families would benefit from this additional support, including about nine million single people and almost two million couples. In total, this represents about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.

Let us look at the next measure. The Canada dental benefit would be provided to children under 12 who do not have access to private dental insurance, starting this year. Direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, or up to $650 per year, would be provided for dental care services.

This is the first stage of the government's plan to deliver dental coverage for families with an adjusted net income under $90,000 and will allow children under 12 to receive the dental care they need while the government works to develop a comprehensive national dental care program.

Also, the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program would deliver a $500 payment to 1.8 million renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. This more than doubles the government's budget 2022 commitment, reaching twice as many Canadians as initially promised. The federal benefit will be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families, or below $20,000 for individuals, who spend at least 30% of their adjusted net income on rent.

In addition to these important pieces of legislation, I would also like to speak about another important measure to help Canadian families, and that is early learning and child care. On child care, the economic argument is clear. The government believes it is an economic malpractice to force women to choose between their families and a career. Early learning and child care is a feminist economic policy in action.

That is why, despite reasonable doubts about our ability to make it happen, we have already signed early learning and child care agreements with every province and territory.

We are building a universal early learning and child care system at precisely the time when our economy needs all mothers who want to work, as long as they can be certain their children are receiving good care and a good education. Our plan makes it easier for people to work, and it makes life more affordable for middle-class Canadian families.

Three years from now, the average cost of child care across the country will be $10 a day.

Affordable early learning and child care, with savings that start immediately, promises to be an important part of the solution to affordability challenges for many Canadian families. Labour force shortages are a problem right now for our economy. In actual fact, there are 952,000 vacancies across Canada where employers are looking for employees. I will repeat, there are 952,000, and affordable early learning and child care is going to be such an important part of Canada's solution. It is going to help us build an economy and a country that is stronger and, yes, more prosperous.

The measures that the government tabled on Tuesday would deliver targeted support to Canadians who need it most, without exacerbating inflation, building on our government's affordability plan and, yes, being fiscally prudent. We are putting more money back in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.

For those Canadians who need it most, Bill C‑30, Bill C‑31 and early learning and child care services are measures that will help make life more affordable.

We will continue to provide support where it is needed most and in a timely fashion, while maintaining fiscal discipline.

Our economy is strong in respect of our labour market. We know Canadian employers need workers, which I am asked about all the time in the area I represent, but we also must deal with the affordability challenges that Canadians face. As a father of three daughters, my wife and I know what the prices are at the grocery stores. I empathize with Canadians who are facing those challenges. Our government, working with all parties, needs to rise up to those challenges and help Canadians expeditiously. It is great to see the opposition parties supporting the doubling of the GST tax credit by the end of the year.

I encourage all Canadians, as the former parliamentary secretary to the national revenue minister, to please file their taxes. That is how they receive all their credits and benefits, and that is how our government can help them expeditiously, efficiently and before the end of the year with the challenges they and their families may be facing at this critical juncture.

We know we are building a stronger economy, and we know we are maintaining a strong fiscal footprint and framework for my children and all Canadian children, but we have work to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleagues engaged on a really important topic, which is Bill C-30.

I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge.

We are talking about Bill C-30, legislation that would double the GST credit for the next six months. Fortunately, we have been able to move the legislation forward quickly, because Canadians need support, particularly those who are vulnerable. There have been a lot of conversations around affordability and the inflationary pressures being felt around the world and, indeed, right here in Canada.

I will give credit to His Majesty's loyal opposition for helping to work with the parties in advancing the legislation the government has put forward, because we are on third reading now. The hope is that we can approve it, I believe this week, and get it to the Senate and ultimately out to Canadians.

This is part of an affordability package that also includes Bill C-31, which would increase the Canadian housing benefit by up to $500 for those who are vulnerable. It would also introduce a dental care program for those children who are under 12 in a household with an income of less than $90,000 and do not already have private coverage.

I will call it as I see it. I commend the Conservatives for supporting this legislation, but I am a little disappointed that they are not supporting the legislation that is really important for those children who are vulnerable. I have not heard a whole lot of compelling rationale as to why they would not support this.

There is another issue about which I want to go on record. I have had conversations with my colleagues on this side of the House and have been querying the NDP over the last couple of days as it relates to the dental care piece. The NDP has been calling for this to be a fully federally administered program, and I want to be very clear about my position on that.

I support the idea of the Government of Canada investing in money to support those who do not have the ability to take care of their dental needs themselves, that there is a program in place for vulnerable Canadians, but I would like to see this administered similar to our child care program. We talked about child care for a long time. It was this government that stepped up and ensured there was a national child care program, by putting federal funds on the table and working with the provinces and territories.

I have a bit of concern on the NDP position that this should be completely fully administered federally. It is not that there is no federal funding, which is not the part I disagree with; it is about the delivery mechanism. I truly believe that the provinces and territories are in a better place. I want to ensure that my position as a parliamentarian is on the record. It is not that we disagree about the need for it, but I might disagree with the NDP about the delivery mechanism. The provinces are actually better suited to handle that.

This is all happening in the context of a government that is trying to walk the line between helping vulnerable Canadians who need support, but also not pouring fuel on the fire in an area where we do have inflationary pressures. The Bank of Canada is increasing its interest rates to try to bring down inflation, and it is responsible government to ensure that any type of spending measures coming forward are very targeted. I want to give credit to this government for doing that.

Our government has been there. This is a targeted measure that will apply to Canadian households under $50,000, so this is not a GST benefit that is going to those who are quite wealthy and well off. It tries to help those who are truly trying to get by. It is a targeted measure. My understanding of the cost estimate is that it will be about $2.5 billion, which is from the Minister of Finance. When we look at the global scale of the inflationary pressures, of the work of the Bank of Canada, it is a reasonable amount that I do not think will upset the apple cart vis-à-vis those conversations between monetary and fiscal policy.

I want to contrast that to what we are seeing in the United Kingdom. I have a great affinity with this being the mother Parliament, and we take a lot of British tradition in Canada from a Westminster perspective. However, we saw what happened in the United Kingdom, where its government introduced a level of government spending by virtue of tax credits, particularly those on some of the most wealthy, and that has had real consequences. It has driven interest rates even higher for the Bank of Canada. It has shaken financial markets in that country. The United Kingdom just announced yesterday that it actually walked back the tax cut that was proposed for those of the highest income earners.

It is not perhaps my job to opine on fiscal policy in the United Kingdom, but it is clear that the consequences of that government's choice has led to a real disruption of the work of monetary policy and has had a big impact on financial markets.

Compare that to how this government has responded in a reasonable and targeted way, working in lockstep with the Bank of Canada. It should be commended, and it shows reasonable fiscal management.

As a result, our Minister of Finance has been able to update the House that we are in a current surplus situation. We have had to rein in our spending. There was record spending during the pandemic to ensure we took care of Canadian households and businesses. However, it is also our job to ensure that we do not continue to drive inflationary pressures that have been felt around the world, that we take measures to help support those who are most vulnerable.

I would like to focus on some other measures that will be important for supporting affordability and economic growth and competitiveness in the days ahead. I think the next 18 to 24 months are going to be difficult for the Canadian economy and for Canadian households. That is in the form of regulatory modernization and approach. I take great pride in trying to be a member of Parliament that raises these issues. They are of great benefit and consequence to our country and for our government.

I want to go through a few of them for the benefit of my colleagues in the House and talk about elements this government can take on to drive and help benefit all Canadians.

One is the huge opportunity that we have in Atlantic Canada on offshore wind, particularly with regard to the conversation of hydrogen. Premier Tim Houston, the Premier of Nova Scotia, announced a desire to roll out offshore wind opportunities. I am looking at my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Newfoundland and Labrador has the same desire, but we have to amend legislation on the offshore petroleum board act, which would actually allow these types of regulatory models to exist. This would give the investor confidence for those projects to move forward.

There is one example on which the government can move forward, and I know it will. In short order, we need to give that certainty, so we can drive investment on our renewable future.

I want to talk about Health Canada. As the chair of the agriculture committee, I often talk to farmers. I talk to other stakeholders who talk about Health Canada approvals.

I will give one example, which is 3-NOP, a feed additive to help support the reduction of methane from livestock. We call them cow burps. This is a product that can help us fight climate change. It has regulatory approval in Europe. It has regulatory approval in the United States. The company is now in the process of applying to Health Canada. It could be another 18 to 24 months by the time it actually works its way through Health Canada's system.

What if we took trusted jurisdictions around the world, let us say, the United States, Europe, New Zealand and Australia, which have similar values to what we have with respect to public safety and public protection, and changed the model. What if we allowed a company, which had a product, a service or some type of element that would have to go through Health Canada but it already had approvals in those jurisdictions in which we have trust, to start operating in Canada, go through the regulatory process and until such time that Health Canada found a rationale for why it should not operate in our country, it would have a presumptive approval to go ahead?

Those are some examples where we can move forward. I want to discuss this one further. These are the type of elements that we need to start thinking about. We have to be creative on how we can create wealth, how we can drive innovation and foreign direct investment on elements that do not cost money. It is going to be important.

Another example would be gene editing, and we have talked about this in the House, with regard to plant proteins. This is something for which the guidance documents were provided by Health Canada. That is driving important investment in the country, because it is giving the regulatory certainty.

Airports, whether it border modernization, or the Canada Grain Act, or seed modernization or even SMR technologies, the government and we, as parliamentarians can do a lot of work that is non-cost-measures that will help drive innovation.

I wish I had more time. Perhaps I will find another time in the days ahead to continue to elaborate on those points, but on regulatory reform modernization, we can continue to drive that bus and it will help drive Canada in the days ahead.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin discussing Bill C-30, I must stop to recognize that indigenous women and girls continue to be violated and marginalized at rates much higher than those in the general population.

Today is the National Day of Action for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. New Democrats add their voices to the collective call to bring an end to the injustices suffered by Canada's indigenous women and girls. I raise my hands to the members for Winnipeg Centre and Nunavut, who continue to advocate and bring understanding to this House of the causes of the systemic abuses that indigenous women and girls continue to experience and to hold the Liberal government accountable for its lack of action.

Bill C-30 is here at a very critical time for Canadians. There are too many struggling with the rising cost of living and the challenge of keeping rents paid and food in the fridge. The fact that there is a need for immediate financial support for millions of Canadians is not an accident. It is a result of bad Liberal and Conservative policies. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have prioritized tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthiest in this country while intentionally eroding the social safety nets that support the well-being of the majority of Canadians. Poverty and homelessness are growing in this country, and they are a reality in every city and town.

While fossil fuel companies and big corporate grocery chains are bringing in billions of dollars in profits, people are falling further and further behind. It is far past time the Liberal government needs to close the long-standing tax loopholes for the superwealthy and finally make large corporations and the largest polluters pay their fair share. It is no secret that corporate greed is hurting Canadians, and it has only increased and magnified like so many other things during this pandemic. While the Liberals and Conservatives protect the profits of the wealthiest corporations, persons with disabilities, single moms, seniors and families on fixed and low incomes are not able to afford to purchase fresh fruit, cheese or meats. Some of the moms I have spoken to in Port Moody—Coquitlam are limiting their meals to one a day so that they can afford to feed their kids.

After too many years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments making decisions to put corporations above everyday people, our social safety net is eroded. The social safety net that supports the well-being of Canadians has been eroded to the point that we are here today trying to put patches of immediate support in place.

New Democrats are here to act on this immediate need. We are using our power to get the government to send financial support out to people with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. I include Bill C-31 because the two bills are connected. They are both offering immediate investments in the well-being of people, investments that never would have come from the government without the pressure from New Democrats.

New Democrats will not stop fighting for people even after these immediate benefits kick in. We will continue to force the government to do the right thing and put people first. We will continue to stop fossil fuel subsidies from going to the largest polluters, close tax loopholes for the wealthiest, stop the exploitation of workers and get our health care system back on track. The health care system is broken. We see it in our communities every day. A broken health care system is hurting people. Nurses have worked tirelessly, as well as doctors and hospital staff, to the extent that they are burnt-out and people who are sick are not getting access to the care they need.

We have all heard the heartbreaking stories in our communities of those who have gone to the hospital for help and have not been able to make it in time or have decided not to go at all with fatal consequences. The government must invest in care workers immediately and increase the health care transfers the provinces have been calling for.

One in five people in this country work in the care economy, and those professionals, personal care workers, nurses and doctors have been exploited. That exploitation comes from discrimination. Gender discrimination has kept wages low in nursing. Nurses, teachers and child care workers are all disproportionately women. The government has not invested in their wages or their pensions, yet it expects them to carry the burden of an overloaded and underfunded economy and underfunded system.

The care economy is underpinned by the exploitation of immigrants as well. More often they are women without secured status. This is unacceptable. Immigrants deserve better. They deserve investment and support. New Democrats will continue to force the government to respect the workers in the care economy by paying them properly, giving immigrant care workers immediate permanent status and giving long-term care workers the protection they deserve with legislation.

We need workers in this country. Labour shortages are happening in every industry. This is a real problem that the government has not brought any solutions to yet. When we think about the labour force, we know that unaffordable housing is exasperating this problem. Workers cannot afford to live where they work. The Conservatives under the Mulroney government and then the Liberals under Chrétien axed housing programs in this country. In fact, the Liberals outright cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. That was almost 30 years ago. That is why we have a housing crisis before us.

Bill C-31 has a $500 housing subsidy that is coming for renters. This is a small, good gesture. This housing benefit is a one-time $500 payment to Canadians who qualify. Specifically, it will help families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. There are many people in Canada who earn less than $35,000 a year in this environment. That is 1.8 million Canadians. This renters' benefit will make a real difference at this critical time.

Financialization of housing needs to be addressed immediately. It is contributing to unaffordability. The Conservatives will say that they are there for people on housing, but they do not talk about the need for affordable housing and the right kind of housing. This is not just a supply issue. One in five Canadians are paying more than 30% of their total income for their housing and that is not sustainable. At the same time, for every new unit of affordable rental housing, 15 units are being lost. There are 15 units lost for every new one, and we wonder why we are seeing homelessness on our streets. This is affecting the most marginalized people in the country, pushing them every day to the brink, to a tent pitched in a street.

As the NDP disability critic, I hear from the disability community of the realities of not being able to make ends meet with skyrocketing housing costs and the threat of displacement every day. Food costs are also becoming unmanageable. As they wait for movement on the Canada disability benefit, they are falling further and further behind. Bill C-22 needs to come back to the House immediately so that the long-term support that persons living with disabilities deserve, and should be legislated, can be passed in the House.

Almost one million persons with disabilities are living in poverty. It is a disgrace. It will only take the will of the Liberals and Conservatives, who could have supported the unanimous consent motion from the member for Kitchener Centre last week, to fast-track this benefit. The New Democrats are ready to do so.

Coming back to the cost of food, in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, a disproportionate number of food bank and food rescue recipients are persons with disabilities, and more children are becoming food insecure. Too many schools are having to feed the children of our communities. We are in a country full of natural resources and with a new bursting aspiration to make batteries for electric vehicles, yet we are not investing in food. If it were not for the not-for-profit sector, even more Canadians would be hungry right now.

Failed policies to give to the rich while taking away social safety nets, such as affordable housing, are hurting people in this country. A beacon of the Canadian social safety net is our health care plan. Thanks to the New Democrats, that finally includes a historical dental care plan, which is a profound and long-lasting benefit for millions of Canadians and will be transformational for generations to come. We have heard many times while discussing Bill C-31 that the number one surgery for kids in hospitals is for tooth decay. How is it possible in Canada that kids need to go to the hospital to be put to sleep to deal with their dental care?

With the heavy lifting of the New Democrats, the Liberals have finally taken the first steps to true universal health care by adding long-awaited dental care. It should not have taken this long, and the New Democrats will hold the current government to account for a full rollout to every Canadian who needs it.

I will take a moment here to speak about persons with disabilities and their dental care. There was a woman in my riding who was on disability benefits and had coverage for dental care. However, the clinic she was going to was charging $20 per visit, and she could not go for her second visit because she did not have the $20. It is not acceptable that this is the situation we are putting too many Canadians in.

We know that 35% of Canadians lack proper dental insurance, and that number jumps to 50% when we talk about low-income Canadians. There are seven million Canadians who avoid going to the dentist because of costs. It is shameful and something that has to change. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease and have the worst dental care. The New Democrats are going to change that. We will not give up until all Canadians have access to the dental care they need. This is health care, and we need to start with kids.

Lastly, when it comes to getting immediate support to Canadians, the New Democrats led the way on Bill C-30, which would double the GST credit. This rebate should have come a lot sooner. In fact, for over six months, the NDP has been calling on the government to double the GST credit. We have relentlessly pushed for this, and now we know that 11 million Canadians who need it the most would get some financial relief, likely before the end of this year. People in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam are asking when they can get it. They are desperately in need of any kind of financial support in these times.

Because of successive Conservative and Liberal governments, we do not have social safety nets to keep people in homes, keep food in the fridge or keep people healthy in this country. With much pressure on the Liberal government from the NDP, and with no help from the Conservatives, the House is in a position to make lives just a tiny bit better for people by providing these very small income supports immediately. New Democrats will always put people first, but the Liberal government needs to start making real investments in people and their well-being in Canada.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques noted, inflation is not new. Canadians have been living with inflation and a cost of living crisis for the better part of the past year. Only now is the government taking some short-term measures that I would submit constitute nothing more than band-aid solutions. At the same time, while the government is handing out a few hundred dollars here in rent cheques, the government will be taking back with the other hand, from those few Canadians who will benefit, in the form of increased taxes, the tripling of the carbon tax and an increase in payroll taxes in the new year.

Would the hon. member agree that what we have before us, with both Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, is nothing more than Liberal smoke and mirrors?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the first question, I suggest the member sit down and talk with the Minister of Finance. I am sure the minister would be more than happy to provide an explanation as to why it might not be able to be done. I do not know the answer.

With regard to Bill C-22, I can assure the member that the minister responsible for the disability legislation is very eager and wants to see the legislation come back. Unfortunately, with a limited amount of House debate time, there is only so much legislation we can bring in. For example, I would have loved to debate that bill today, but the problem is that we have to get Bill C-30 through and Bill C-31.

There are a number of pieces of legislation. If we had more opportunities to bring forward government bills, that would probably be the ideal. For example, Bill C-30 is universally supported by all members of the House from what I can tell. Right after I sit down, we could pass it and go right to the disability bill. I would be in favour of that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have to put things into the perspective of time and how government ultimately evolves its policies. I, for one, have always advocated strongly on pharmacare. That is an area the government could expand in. I often talked about dental care also. I am very glad that we have been able to achieve what we have in Bill C-31 and I appreciate the contributions and support that the NDP has offered.

Canadians elected a minority government and they expect opposition and government members to work together. We have at least two political entities in the House that saw fit to come up with an idea of providing, as a first step, dental services to children under the age of 12. I see that as a positive thing, and I look forward to ongoing discussions on how we can help Canadians during this difficult time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would concur with the member from the Bloc. Inflation is very real; we know that. Whether it is what has taken place with the war in Europe or the pandemic, we recognize that around the world inflation is happening. Even though Canada is doing exceptionally well. When we compare us to the United States, England and Europe, our inflation rate has been lower, but that does not mean that we ignore it. That is why we have a Prime Minister, members of the Liberal caucus and others who are trying to develop and support ideas that would be targeted to ensure we are helping the people who need the help the most.

In terms of people who are on fixed incomes, a 10% increase, to those who are 75 and over, on OAS is significant. I am talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 would do exactly what it is—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no, the member for Abbotsford would not have done that. I agree. Having said that, we can imagine those individuals who did. It is somewhat sad, because many people we represent have confidence in what they are hearing. With a leadership candidate going around saying, “Invest in cryptocurrency”, I suspect many Canadians did just that.

Unfortunately those who followed that advice lost a great deal of money. I think a conservative estimate would be at least 20%, some might even say it is considerably higher than that. My colleague suggests it might be much higher.

The bottom line is that that is the type of economic advice that was being provided, but it does not stop there. Let us remember that the initial response from the Conservative Party to Bill C-30, the bill we are actually debating today, was to not support it. I like to think that the response received by the Conservative Party over a few days ultimately caused them to change their mind, and I am glad they did because it is good legislation.

However, initially they were not going to support it. In part, it was because the Conservative Party feels that everything involving a collection of money from Canadians is called a tax, as a member across the way suggests. It is such a sad statement, and I will give two examples of that shortly. I do believe the Conservatives were shamed into supporting Bill C-30. I would like to see them do the same thing for Bill C-31.

If Conservatives support the children they represent in their constituencies who are under the age of 12 and who do not have dental plans being able to access dental services, they should be supporting Bill C-31, not filibustering. That is how children would receive the dental services they need. Many of those children who do not receive dental services often end up in a hospital situation, getting surgery for things that could have been prevented. That is what Bill C-31 would do, not to mention also supporting renters by giving them payments.

However, the Conservatives do not want to support that. They say it is about taxes, and I said there is a couple of issues I want to raise on that particular front. A number of years ago, when I was in opposition, I used to be fairly disappointed in Stephen Harper not recognizing the importance of CPP. CPP is an investment, not a tax. The Conservatives would argue today, as they did from their seats, that CPP is a tax.

Stephen Harper refused to negotiate with and talk to premiers about increasing CPP contributions. When we took government, we worked with all political parties, and provinces and territories, to get an agreement to increase CPP contributions, what the Conservative Party today calls a “tax”. It really is for individuals who are working today to invest in their retirement, so when they do retire, they will have more disposable income.

Only the Conservative Party of Canada, not Conservatives at the provincial level, just the national Conservative Party, does not believe in the importance of CPP and the importance of ensuring that people have more disposable income when it comes time for retirement.

When it comes to taxes, in the Conservative Party we see a party that is in complete disarray. Do members remember when I spoke about flip-flopping? I have referenced the analogy of pulling in a fish and it ending up on the dock, and we see it flip-flop around. That is what I think about when I think about the price on pollution and the Conservative Party of Canada. Again, it really does stand alone.

Back in 2015 and 2016, governments around the world, with the Paris Accord, came together and said that we need to deal with the environment, and one of the best ways to deal with the environment was to deal with the price on pollution as a policy tool that would have a real impact. At the time when the accord was reached, and the Prime Minister, along with a delegation from different provinces, came back from Paris, there was a great deal of enthusiasm about it. It was only the Conservative Party here in the chamber that was negative toward it.

The Conservatives had had a change in leadership, if members will recall. Shortly after the second change of leadership, the Conservative Party changed its mind, and it was applauded. I believe the record will show I stood up inside the House and complimented the Conservatives for changing their minds on the issue. They, or at least a good number of them, finally recognized that climate change was in fact real and that having a price on pollution was a good thing.

Let us pause to stop and think about that. When we think about that, let us reflect back to a year ago when we were all knocking on doors. It was not that long ago that we were knocking on doors. What was the Conservative Party saying as its members were knocking on doors? The Conservatives were saying that they believed in a price on pollution. The leader at the time insisted that candidates and the Conservative platform would dictate a price on pollution. That has changed once again. There is new leadership and new direction. The climate change deniers are prevailing, and we now have the leader of the official opposition saying, “No, we are going to get rid of the price on pollution”, or the carbon tax, as he refers to it.

Let us remember that the federal carbon tax is only applied Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the federal Conservative Party now going to go into the provinces and say to the other provinces that do not have the national program and that they are going to get rid of any price on pollution? I would be interested in seeing the negotiations that would take place about that. Is the Conservative Party saying only some parts of Canada should have a price on pollution?

This is the reason I look at Bill C-30 as a positive step. It is an encouraging thing to see Conservatives change their minds and support Bill C-30. I applaud that. I would like them to revisit a number of the issues I have pointed out that continue to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. One of the things they can do, and I will conclude my remarks on this, is not only support Bill C-30 but also support Bill C-31. They should do it for the individuals who need that rent subsidy and the children under the age of 12 who need the dental insurance.

Dental Care

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the health committee heard conclusively from experts that pediatric dental care is part of the overall children’s health plan. The president of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario stated that it has kids in pain because they cannot get dental surgery, the part of it they would see, with seven-eighths of them not getting surgery on time. Why is it that the Conservatives want to obstruct kids from receiving a benefit that would prevent the burden of dental disease?

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health please tell this House the importance of passing Bill C-31 so that children can get the treatment they need this year for good oral health?

Opposition Motion—Moratorium on New Taxes

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her speech, which was certainly very interesting.

She spoke at length about the measures her government is putting in place to deal with inflation, including dental insurance and rent assistance. However, when we read the bill, it is clear that it is not compatible with what exists in Quebec. Quebec has its own rent assistance program, and Quebeckers do not apply for the benefit directly. There is not a single line in Bill C-31 to tie it all together.

The same goes for dental insurance. Bill C‑31 is for children who are 11 or younger. In Quebec, unless I am mistaken, children under the age of nine are already covered. How do we tie that together? There is not a single word about it. They did not even think about it.

Does the government intend to amend the bill to take Quebec's reality into account? We opposition members can make amendments in committee, but the House of Commons law clerks would not find that acceptable since it would require royal assent. What does my colleague think?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is well aware that we are going through a period of high inflation around the world. Families are feeling the pinch at the pumps and at the grocery store. It is not an easy time. However, the fact remains that Canada is doing well compared to its peers, with a slightly lower inflation rate. Inflation is 7% in Canada, but it is about 8.3% in the United States, 7.9% in Germany and 9.9% in the United Kingdom. Things are really not going well in Great Britain these days.

I also want to point out to the House that inflation is a global phenomenon that can be attributed in large part to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and China's zero-COVID policy.

Although the causes of inflation are outside Canada's control, there are certainly things we can do here right now to help Canadians. That is why we are bringing in measures totalling $12.1 billion to make the cost of living more affordable for millions of Canadians in order to help them make ends meet and provide for their families.

Our affordability measures are a key part of the government's assistance plan to make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Thanks to our plan, in July of this year, we increased old age security by 10% for people aged 75 and up. This will mean over $800 in additional benefits in the first year for seniors who receive the full benefit and increased benefits for over three million seniors.

We are also strengthening the Canada workers benefit with investments of $1.7 billion a year. That means a couple earning minimum wage could receive up to $2,400 more in support this year, and we estimate that this could put more money into the pockets of about three million Canadians.

In collaboration with the provinces and territories, we are putting in place a new universal system of affordable early learning and child care services. Thanks to this system, Canadian families will see their child care costs reduced by 50% on average this year.

Last week, our government introduced Bills C-30 and C-31 to implement three important measures to help Canadians. With Bill C-30, we will double the GST credit for six months, which will provide an additional $2.5 billion in support to those Canadians who need it most. Single Canadians without children will receive up to $234 more, while couples with two children will receive up to $467 more this year. I would like to point out that the official opposition said last week that it would support Bill C‑30. That is excellent news.

With Bill C‑31, we are moving forward with a one-time top-up of $500 to the Canada housing benefit for 1.8 million renters who are struggling to pay their rent. That is more than double the amount allocated in budget 2022.

With Bill C‑31, we are also proposing to create the Canadian dental benefit for families that do not have access to private dental insurance and make less than $90,000 a year. Oral health is so important to overall health for children and Canadians.

It would provide financial support to parents with children under the age of 12 starting this year. Families will receive direct payments of up to $650 per year for the next two years, for a total of $1,300 per child, to cover dental costs. This is the first step in the government's plan to provide dental care for families in need.

I hope that the official opposition will support Bill C‑31 as it supported Bill C‑30.

I want to remind the leader of the official opposition that, through the climate action incentive payment, our government is returning a significant amount of money to Canadians living in the provinces that do not have their own pricing system that meets the Canada-wide standard, which are Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I should note that Quebec has had its carbon exchange for a long time.

Approximately 90% of the fuel charge proceeds go straight back to residents of these provinces through the climate action incentive payment. In 2022-23, a family of four will receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan, and $1,079 in Alberta. In most cases, the recipients will be getting more back than they paid.

We have a plan to help Canadians that puts more money into the pockets of those who need it most, when they need it most. I am very proud of our government's plan to make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Canadians can continue to count on our government to support them as we move through this inflationary period.

As Bills C‑30 and C‑31 show, we continue to make progress in offering Canadians the measures they need to help them make ends meet.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me thank the member opposite and all Conservative members for their support in advancing Bill C-30, which is critical support at this time on the issue of affordability. I want to thank them for helping to move it to committee and for their work to move it through committee. It will be our priority next week to ensure that those critical supports are passed.

In response to the question of whether we will cease taking action on climate change, I note we will never stop fighting for this planet. We recognize that the climate and the economy are intricately bound. However, I would suggest, as my hon. colleague has suggested, that we have critical supports for vulnerable people. An example is Bill C-22. It needs to be adopted so that those who are disabled in this country can be lifted out of poverty. I would suggest there are families that need dental care, and that is covered in Bill C-31. I would suggest there are people who need support on housing, and that is also covered in Bill C-31.

The good news for the member opposite is there are many ways he can help as we work through the affordability crisis that is hitting across the globe.

On Monday, we are going to continue with second reading of Bill C-31, which I referenced earlier. It is an act respecting the cost-of-living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

On Wednesday, we will call Bill S-5 concerning the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I would also like to inform the House that next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Opposition Motion—Moratorium on New Taxes

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

Madam Speaker, I like to think of what is being proposed by the Conservative Party as another opportunity for us to really express the contrast. What a difference there is between the Conservative Party and the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada. We have a Prime Minister, ministers and in fact an entire Liberal caucus who are very much focused on ensuring that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. That is our priority.

It should be no surprise that back in 2015 when we formed government, we made a commitment to Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. If we take a look at the policies, whether they are budgetary measures or legislative measures, members will find that we have been consistent virtually from day one.

When we had the worldwide pandemic, and I emphasize “worldwide”, we responded by supporting Canadians. We supported them in a big way. For millions of Canadians, small businesses and individuals, we were there. We spent billions of dollars in support, and the Conservatives actually voted in favour of many of those billions of dollars. However, today, they criticize us for spending that money. There is a word in the dictionary that would best describe this but it is unparliamentary so I will not say it. However, I can tell members that the Conservative Party of Canada is all over the map on all sorts of economic and environmental issues. The Conservatives are not consistent.

Last Tuesday, in an emergency debate, they talked about taxes, and they used the example of the price on pollution. Members will remember that Stephen Harper was supportive of a price on pollution, but the Conservatives back then said, “No, we don't support a price on pollution.” They were jumping up and down in opposition saying that it was not a price on pollution but a tax. Then the former Conservative leader, the one before the interim leader, indicated very clearly that he supported the principle of having a price on pollution. That leader was the one who led the entire group, and every Conservative candidate in Canada campaigned on a price on pollution. However, again, we see members of the Conservative Party taking a massive flip. They have changed their policy, even though they campaigned on it, and now they do not support a price on pollution. Now they are talking about other taxes.

We can think of the leadership of the Conservative Party and the need to be consistent. What did the Conservative leader talk about? My colleague from Kingston and the Islands has raised this on a couple of occasions and the Minister of Finance has raised it. Many of us in the Liberal caucus do not understand why the leader of the official opposition today, as a leadership candidate, said to all those who wanted to listen to invest in cryptocurrency. He said that was the way to fight inflation. He encouraged Canadians and his followers to invest in it.

We have to feel for the individuals who followed the advice of the Conservative leader. Who knows? Maybe it was not his personal idea; maybe it was from another Conservative. I do not know. The bottom line is that it was a stupid idea. At the end of the day, how many Canadians lost thousands of dollars because they listened to today's leader of the Conservative Party just a few months back?

We can think of the Bank of Canada, an institution recognized around the world for its independence and good stewardship on the issue of Canada's money supply and the impact it has on our economy. Well, the leader of the Conservative Party had an idea: He would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. How bizarre is that?

There were even Conservatives who did not support that. I can recall at least one who was somewhat displaced from the front bench and the role he was playing because he was vocal that this was a dumb idea. He spoke truth to power, many would ultimately argue.

The Conservatives talk about wanting tax relief and wanting to give relief to Canadians because of inflation. There are two things that come to mind. Number one is that they need to take their collective heads out of the sand and recognize that inflation is taking place around the world. In the U.S.A., the inflation rate is higher. In Europe and in England, the inflation rate is higher. It does not mean that Canada should not be doing anything.

We have a progressive government that has consistently, from 2015, been there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. In fact, we have brought forward two pieces of legislation that would provide virtually immediate relief for Canadians. We all know, in regard to the GST rebate, that Bill C-30 has passed into committee. That was to give 11 million Canadians money in their pockets to assist them in dealing with inflation. Originally, the Conservatives opposed it. That is hard to believe. How do they oppose something when they are saying they want tax breaks and that is what we would be providing? We would be providing cash in people's pockets, and originally the Conservatives opposed it.

I am grateful. I do not want to come across as being ungrateful all the time. I am grateful the Conservatives actually changed their minds again. This time, 11 million Canadians are going to benefit, because of the Conservatives changing their minds and supporting sending the legislation to committee. I am an optimist, with my fingers crossed and all. I am hoping it will go through the committee and get through third reading, and hopefully we will be able to do that in a relatively quick fashion. We have to do it before they change their minds again, but that was an encouraging sight.

We have Bill C-31, which would do two things. One is that it would establish, for the first time in history, here in Canada, an opportunity for parents to collect support for dental care for children under the age of 12. Who would oppose that? At a time when we are experiencing inflation and have children who are going into hospital for emergency services in order to get dental work done because they cannot afford to get it done, and we have a government that is bringing forward legislation that would assist them in doing that, it is hard to believe the Conservatives would oppose that.

Tied into that legislation is additional support for people who are having a difficult time making rent payments. It is hundreds of dollars, and millions across the country, and the Conservatives, again, are indicating they are not going to be supporting Bill C-31. It is unfortunate.

On the one hand, they say to support Canadians. On the other hand, if they are ashamed, we can convince them to make a flip-flop, as with Bill C-30, but we still have a little more work to do to get them convinced that providing a service to our children under the age of 12 to get dental work is a good thing and they should support it, and that the support for rental payments is worthy of support. Hopefully we will see Bill C-31 pass.

There are so many things the Government of Canada is doing to support our economy and the people of Canada. The emphasis is on ensuring that we have an economy that is working for all Canadians. At the same time, we understand the importance of health care, whether it is long-term care, mental health, dental or working with the provinces, and it does not mean being an ATM. What it means is ensuring there is a higher sense of accountability.

Canadians deserve the best quality health care, and this is a government and a minister who are committed to delivering that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my dear friend and colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, which is in the beautiful city of Winnipeg in the beautiful province of Manitoba. I know it will be riveting for everyone to hear the member's remarks, after I give mine of course.

I am pleased to respond to this motion today, brought forward by the official opposition. The government’s timely and targeted measures played an important role in helping Canadian businesses weather the pandemic and now respond to the global inflation that has taken a hold of Canada and the world for reasons we know quite well. It has helped Canadian businesses and workers deal with the economic uncertainty and financial challenges brought on by COVID-19, by supply chain issues and now by the subsequent and very unfortunate barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Our government enacted its plan while also exercising fiscal responsibility and prudence. It is a serious plan with serious leadership. Our actions have built a resilient foundation as the world economy continues to face strong headwinds.

I remind my hon. colleagues that if they have read the news in the past couple days about what is going on in Europe regarding movements in bonds and stock prices, and Nord Stream, there continues to be greater uncertainty in the world economy that we too will face and that is coming to the shores of North America. That is why we need serious leadership for these very uncertain times.

Canada is faring better than other G7 countries in these difficult times. The OECD continues to project that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7, both this year and in 2023. The OECD just revised this week its projections for economic growth.

In addition, Canada has the lowest total government deficit in the G7 this year, and by far the lowest net debt burden among these countries. This is due to our government's overriding commitment to fiscal prudence, to maintain a fiscal framework and to always maintain our AAA credit rating to ensure a good, strong fiscal position, not only today, but going into the future for all our children, including my three kids.

However, Canada is not immune to adverse global developments. Global supply challenges and elevated energy prices resulting from the illegal, barbaric Russian invasion of Ukraine are adding upward pressure on global prices, including in our country. We also know that inflation is a global phenomenon that is a lingering result of the pandemic. It is exacerbated by worldwide events, and it is making life harder for many Canadians, including those back in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Canada’s job market is strong, though, and businesses are doing well. Corporate profit margins and corporate balance sheets are actually very robust, and companies are investing in this country. We have seen this in the automotive sector here in Ontario. We have seen this with our steelmakers here in Ontario. We have seen this with our artificial intelligence in organizations like in the city of Montreal.

That is why our government support programs continue to be so important for the Canadians who continue to face challenges today because they are exposed to high inflation, including seniors, folks with fixed incomes, and working Canadians.

We have an affordability plan that includes many important measures. This is to support the most vulnerable people in our communities, to help them at a time when the cost of living is a real challenge for many Canadians. Our affordability plan is a suite of targeted measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support in 2022 to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including those in my wonderful riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Simply put, we are helping Canadians cope with inflation, and I am very surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not mention our measures in his motion.

Therefore, allow me to outline some of the key measures in this plan that will help Canadians manage inflation, including the GST credit. We will double it with Bill C-30 for six months to help 11 million Canadians, with $2.5 billion in relief going to the Canadians who need it the most, like our most vulnerable: single mothers, seniors and folks on fixed incomes.

It is something that is concrete and tangible. We can get it out the door before the year ends. I am glad to see, if I understood correctly, that the official opposition party will be joining us in moving this bill quickly through Parliament and having it receive royal assent, so we can get this help to Canadian families.

In Bill C-31, we have a one-time top-up for the Canada housing benefit to assist nearly two million renters with $500. Again, it would be timely relief that would provide help to Canadians who need it the most.

I will say one thing on the Canada pension plan, because it has been mentioned by various individuals. The CPP was enhanced in June 2016 by our government, after coming to an agreement with all provinces in Canada, to ensure that Canadians have a secure and dignified retirement in their golden years. It is something we worked on with all provinces and we came to an agreement. It demonstrates, again, what I call serious leadership. It is leadership that recognized that Canadians who were retiring needed their Canada pension plan to be enhanced from the level it was at. It was called the replacement rate on their wages and salaries. This is so important because many Canadians do not enjoy a defined benefit pension plan provided under unions or provided to public sector employees.

When Canadians retire, they depend on the Canada pension plan. It is indexed. It is monthly. It is an annuity stream. It is one of the best examples of how Canada is leading the world in ensuring a secure and dignified retirement for its citizens. It was applauded by all corners of our country and somewhat supported by different political parties at the provincial level. These are contributions by our citizens so they can have a great, secure and dignified retirement. This is something we need to continue working on with the types of measures that assist Canadians. Again, this is what I call serious leadership, prudent leadership and reasonable leadership.

On the question of employment insurance, employment insurance is about contributions. They are contributions by employees and employers for when someone is laid off or when there are changes in the economy.

Earlier this week, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, otherwise known as OSFI, released its actuarial report on the employment insurance system. It is in the Employment Insurance Act, something that has been in existence under Conservative governments and Liberal governments. It talks about the seven-year break-even rate. The funds do not go into general government revenues. There is an operating fund for EI; it is there. I was actually reading the report this morning, again from OSFI's chief actuarial officer, and it talks about the EI system.

We know we need to continue to alter and change the EI system to respond to changing workplace requirements and job requirements given the sectoral and geographic changes that happen in our economy and our country. It is very important that when we speak about EI and speak about CPP, we note that these are bedrock programs for our social safety net. They are there to assist Canadians.

Thus, I say again that we need serious leadership at times when there is economic uncertainty and when there are global events happening. To use sound bites and cliches, I think, is a disservice.

On the question of dental coverage in Canada, I said in the prior opposition day that as members of Parliament, we meet a lot of different constituents. I have met constituents who are dealing with dental coverage, especially seniors, and who do not have dental coverage. They did not belong to a public sector union or are not covered under benefits when they retire. They have no coverage. When they go see a dentist, they are paying out-of-pocket.

We need to cover for those seniors. They deserve it. They deserve our support; they deserve our help. That is exactly what our government is going to do. We are going to start off, this year, helping those under 12 with income-tested and means-tested programs. I greatly support means-tested programs. Then we are going to help seniors as well. We are going to make sure that this is in place because it is the right thing to do.

That is, again, dealing with serious leadership in these times and identifying issues that we can all work on as parliamentarians. We can work together to make sure we are taking care of individuals who need assistance.

Seeing a dentist is important for our health, but it can be expensive. A third of Canadians currently do not have dental insurance, and in 2018, more than one in five Canadians reported avoiding dental care because of the cost. That is unacceptable in our country. For these reasons, the government has previously committed to providing dental care for uninsured Canadians with a family income of less than $90,000 annually.

As I know my time is quickly running out, I wish to say happy Thursday to all of my dear colleagues and to all of their constituents at home.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today with my friends and colleagues to speak to the very important issue of making life more affordable for all Canadians.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate today on this motion. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key priority for our government, and I would like to highlight some of the measures that we are taking to address the cost of living.

The pandemic has been, we hope, a once-in-a-lifetime and generation crisis. However, like any major crisis, this has aftershocks and inflation is chief among those aftershocks.

Inflation has made the cost of living into a real struggle for a lot of Canadians and for many of my constituents in Milton, especially the most vulnerable. We understand that our neighbours are going through many tough times right now and these measures are designed to address some of those.

This is not a made-in-Canada challenge. Inflation is affecting people around the world. We are fortunate to recognize that inflation is not as bad here as it is in some other places, but we do have made-in-Canada solutions for the impact that our neighbours are feeling.

Over all, the government's affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support for the Canadians who need it most, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are exposed to inflation.

The government's affordability plan includes an enhanced Canada workers' benefit that will put up to $2,400 more into the pockets of low-income families. There is a 10% increase in old age security for seniors 75 and over, which will provide more than $800 in new supports to full pensioners over the first year and increase benefits for more than three million seniors in Canada. The main support programs, including the Canada child benefit, the GST benefit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are all indexed to inflation and they will be increasing.

Last week, meeting a commitment made earlier this year, the government tabled two important pieces of legislation in Parliament. The bills represent the latest suites of measures to support Canadians with the rising costs of living without adding fuel to the fire of inflation. Bill C-30 would double the goods and services tax credit for six months. Bill C-31 would enact two important measures: the Canada dental benefit and a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit.

Doubling the GST credit will provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to the roughly 11 million Canadians and families that already receive that tax credit. That includes about nine million single people and almost two million couples, and more than half of Canadian seniors as well. Single Canadians without children will receive an extra $234 and couples with two children will receive an additional $467 this year. Seniors will receive, on average, an extra $225.

The next important measure is the Canada dental benefit, which will be provided to eligible Canadian families with children under 12 who do not already have access to dental insurance, starting this year. Direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, which is up to $650 per year per child, will be provided for dental care services. This is the first stage of the government's plan to deliver comprehensive dental coverage for families with adjusted net incomes under $90,000 and will allow children under 12 to receive the dental care they need, while the government works to develop a comprehensive dental care program. As I have said many times in the House before, healthy children today is a healthy Canada tomorrow.

The one-time top-up to the housing benefit will deliver an additional $500 payment to 1.8 million renters who are struggling with the cost of housing right now. This more than doubles the government's budget 2022 commitment, reaching twice as many Canadians as initially promised. The federal benefit will be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families and below $20,000 for individuals who pay at least 30% of their adjusted net incomes on rent, which is, unfortunately, a high proportion of those folks.

In addition to those important pieces of legislation and the rest of the affordability plan, I would also like to speak about an important key measure to help Canadian families; that is the early learning and child care program that we have launched in every province and territory across the country.

Despite legitimate doubts that it was possible, we have already signed agreements on early learning and child care with every province and territory. Our plan makes work and life more affordable for middle-class Canadian families. It means an average reduction in fees of 50% by the end of this year. By 2026, regulated child care will cost an average of just $10 per day right across the country.

Just recently, I heard from a constituent who is going to save $9,000 a year, because he and his wife have two children. They are both going to get to work slightly longer hours, and neither of them will be part-time this year. They were so grateful to the Milton Community Resource Centre for signing on to the early learning and child care plan. I have visited the Milton Community Resource Centre a number of times to ensure that its priorities have been met through that program. It is serving my constituents in Milton and so many families are going to save thousands of dollars next year, thanks to that program.

Labour force shortages are a problem right now for our economy, and affordable early learning and child care is going to be such an important part of Canada's solution.

At this point, I feel that I should make a comment on the so-called payroll taxes about which the Conservatives keep talking.

Canada pension plan contributions are not a tax; they are an investment in one's own retirement, security that receives a tax credit or a tax deduction. The CPP provides an affordable, low-cost and modest pension for Canadian workers outside of Quebec, who are covered by similar benefits of the QPP.

Many Canadians are worried that they will not have put enough money away for their retirement, and fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions or large savings on which to fall back. Our government has delivered on a commitment to Canadians to strengthen the CPP, in collaboration with provinces, to help them achieve their goal of a strong, secure and stable retirement.

The measures I have mentioned today would deliver targeted support to Canadians who need it most, without exacerbating inflation. That is an important balance, and the government's affordability plan is already putting money back in the pockets of Canadians who need it most.

Even as we deal with the very real challenges of the global economy, elevated inflation and increasing interest rates, it is important to take comfort in the reality that Canada has a really strong economic foundation as we face these global challenges. We will continue to provide timely support where it is needed most, all while maintaining fiscal discipline and responsibility.

It has been a tough couple of years for all of us. It does seem like we have to overcome one thing after another, but there are better days ahead, and Canada is in a really good place right now. The numbers today dictate that, and our plan is a strong one. I hope all members in the House will support it.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell constituents, number one, that there is a rebate for the price on pollution, whereby 80% of Canadians actually get back more money than they pay. I would also tell them that I am going to be voting in favour of Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Bill C-30 would literally put hundreds of dollars into the pockets of 11 million people to help combat inflation. I would tell them that when they take a look at Bill C-31, they will see a dental care plan so that those who have challenges with their financial needs will be able to get their children dental work. As opposed to having to pay for it, it would be claimed back.

Literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars are going back into the pockets of people to help them through this challenging time of inflation. That is what I would say.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and address the issue of a price on pollution. It is an issue that just does not seem want to go away.

I had the opportunity earlier to formulate a question on something I wanted to expand upon, and that is trying to really understand what the Conservative Party is doing on the issue of a price on pollution. Over the years, we have seen many different types of positions coming from the Conservative Party. If we go back into the history books, we will find that it was the Province of Alberta that came up with the principle of a price on pollution. We have seen other provinces, whether it is British Columbia, Quebec or many, if not all, of the Atlantic provinces, that have seen the benefits of a price on pollution.

A number of years ago, when we first came into government after the 2015 federal election, we conducted a series of discussions, working with the different stakeholders and, in fact, other world leaders, as the world recognized the value of a price on pollution. People like Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, and Brian Mulroney, a former Progressive Conservative prime minister, supported at least the principle of a price on pollution.

We have seen the Conservative Party, in opposition, change its position. I remember when we first announced it, Conservatives were jumping out of their seats in protest against a price on pollution. As we got closer to an election, particularly the most recent election, we saw a change of heart. In fact, Conservative candidates across Canada in the last federal election knocked on doors saying they supported a price on pollution. They campaigned on it.

Now the leader who got them to convert and recognize the value, as people like Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney did, is no more. At least, he is no longer leader of the Conservative Party. A shiny new leader says Conservatives are opposed to a price on pollution, and now there is an energy starting to come from many of the Conservative MPs I heard years ago saying they oppose it. If we listen to some of the speeches, we can see the misinformation they are trying to spread.

Eighty per cent of the residents I represent in Winnipeg North, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will have more money coming into their homes as a direct result of the price on pollution. The Conservatives tell the constituents of Winnipeg North, my constituents, that they are paying more as a result of the price on pollution, and that is not true. I would suggest that my constituents and Canadians across the country look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in terms of the benefits to a vast majority of Canadians, and that they look at what other provinces are doing.

I would ask members to try to understand this one. The Conservative Party of Canada says it is a bad policy and it wants to get rid of it. If the Conservatives were successful, and heaven forbid that occurs, they would get rid of the price on pollution, but that applies only to Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the leader of the Conservative Party approaching the different premiers of our Confederation, saying the Conservatives are going to get rid of it in Ottawa and he wants them to get rid of it in those provinces?

Does he plan on compensating those provincial governments in one form or another to encourage them to get rid of a price on pollution, or is he just saying that in some regions of the country it is okay to have a price on pollution and in other regions it is not? If there was no federal price on pollution and the Province of Manitoba at some point in time in the future wanted one, would the Conservative Party say it cannot have a price on pollution? I do not believe that to be the case.

The Conservative policy really makes no sense at all. If we listen to what has been said by the Conservatives over the years, we understand that they are all over the place, and at the end of the day it makes no sense. I think they need to go back to the drawing board, like their former leader, the one who campaigned in favour of the price on pollution in the last federal election. Maybe they should invite him in and allow him to participate in that discussion. The Conservatives need to be more consistent in understanding the long-term impact of the type of misinformation they give, and should even try to deal with the issue, which many of us have, that there are many climate change deniers in the Conservative Party.

We have heard from the newly minted leader of the Conservative Party and many of his colleagues that he is this new economic guru of sorts. He actually made a statement, so my colleague from Kingston posed a question on it, as did our parliamentary secretary for tourism: What about the advice to Canadians about cryptocurrency?

Let us remember that when he was running for the leadership, there were two things that really stood out. One was that he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not want to say any unparliamentary words, but suffice it to say, that is not a good idea. Along with that was forgetting about the Canadian dollar and investing in cryptocurrency. He was contending to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Believe it or not, unfortunately, some people would have followed the advice, been intrigued by the statement and looked into it. I would suggest that many would have bought into cryptocurrency. Today, those who did are suffering great losses as a result of listening to the leader of the Conservative Party.

I find this interesting. Yesterday, I was listening to a number of the Conservatives talk about having a wonderful economic policy. I have not seen it. There is some room for encouragement, I guess, and we talked about the GST rebate to support Canadians during this time of inflation. I recognize there is inflation. Our inflation is lower than that of the United States and the European Union, but we can always do better. We are striving to do that, and one of the ways we are doing that is by introducing substantial legislation to provide relief to Canadians in all regions of the country.

We have Bill C-31, on dental care. The Conservatives are still offside and say it is a bad idea. It is the only party in the chamber saying it is a bad idea. However, with respect to Bill C-30, the Conservatives saw the light. Originally, they were against it, but I guess they did some math and figured out we are giving 11 million Canadians a financial break through the enhanced GST rebate, so over the weekend they made the decision to support it.

Let me give them some words of encouragement. If they are genuine in wanting to support Canadians and help them deal with inflation, why not do what they can to encourage the quick passage of our legislation, and at least Bill C-30? After all, they apparently support it now. That is some good, sound advice. I hope they take advantage of it.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Today feels like Groundhog Day because, once again, we are here talking about the price on pollution. It could almost be 2015, which was one of the first times this topic was brought up in a federal election, but there have been three federal elections since then where putting a price on pollution was one of the main items at the ballot box. It almost feels as though, for the last five years, we have not been having discussions with the premiers across the country about whether or not the federal government had a constitutional ability to bring in a price on pollution. It is almost as though we did not have a Supreme Court of Canada case affirm that Canada does indeed have the ability to do this, and that Canada does indeed have to act on a problem that is this fundamental to our country and to the entire world.

I also find it somewhat tone deaf that we are having this discussion today, in the wake of seeing the devastation that has happened in Atlantic Canada, where hurricane Fiona swept through and caused immeasurable damage to communities, including loss of life. We know that this event was only made possible because of climate change and warming sea currents. In the past, these types of hurricanes would have died down over colder water, but now, with warming ocean currents, we are seeing much more severe weather events, such as the hurricanes that are now hitting our shores.

I also find it tone deaf given the devastation we saw in my province of British Columbia last year, where we saw temperatures reach nearly 50°C, with heat domes boiling billions of organisms alive. We saw devastating forest fires, and we saw the atmospheric river, which was the most devastating weather event in our country's history.

I find it particularly tone deaf because not only is this motion the first Conservative motion being put forward, but it is also being put forward without any alternative climate policy at the same time. Therefore, it is clear to me that this motion is not about supporting Canadians with affordability measures. Instead, it is really about blocking climate action.

I find it puzzling that Conservatives portray themselves as being in favour of market-based systems for getting value for money in government spending, but in opposing this policy, they are eschewing what is seen quite widely, including by the IMF, as the most effective and efficient way of reducing pollution. This is pollution that we know is not otherwise accounted for but has a major impact on local human health and on worsening climate change, and I just mentioned some of the major events that we have seen recently. By failing to put a price on pollution, we are allowing this externality to not be properly accounted for, and we know that this particularly impacts the most vulnerable among us.

The Conservatives also portray themselves as the party focused on affordability, but this is going against a policy that we know provides more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians families, particularly low-income Canadians, who are most at risk with the rising cost of living. Of course, we know that the less one pollutes, the more one saves when one gets the climate action incentive.

I find it particularly puzzling because the Conservative Party just last year ran on a platform that included putting a price on pollution, albeit the proposal was a very inefficient and convoluted one. However, this is very puzzling to a member from British Columbia, where we have had a price on pollution in place for almost 15 years. This policy was, in fact, brought in by the right of centre party in my province. We have seen that, by bringing in this policy, it has not impacted the economic growth in my province, which has been among the leaders in Canada ever since.

It is also puzzling because we know that the alternatives are no better. Focusing on regulations alone, we know, is highly costly. We know that, by simply investing in technologies, the government would then be forced to pick winners, which is essentially gambling to a certain extent on one of the biggest challenges that our generation is going to face.

It is also reckless that by abdicating responsibility to act and to repeal policies for climate action, the Conservative Party is letting its intransigence and opposition to climate action cause uncertainty for business, which is impacting the types of investments we need to see business make in technologies and measures that are going to mitigate their emissions. It is also impacting the way we can see growth in clean tech, which the Conservative Party has said it wants to support.

Over the course of the last few months, the environment and sustainable development committee has been undergoing a study on clean tech. What we have heard from nearly all the witnesses is that having policy certainty in place and having a predictable climate policy is essential to providing the certainty and confidence that businesses need to see to invest now in programs and make investments that are going to take five to 10 years to be fully put into place.

By opposing climate action, the Conservatives are also completely ignoring the catastrophic financial costs of climate change-fuelled weather events in Canada, which have a direct cost on people.

I mentioned the flooding in B.C. last year, which was the most expensive weather event in Canadian history. The forest fires in Fort McMurray cost almost $10 billion to rebuild. We know that hurricane Fiona is also going to cost billions. We all pay for these costs through the rising price of goods, taxes and lost productivity, which leads to inflation when it causes supply chain disruptions, which we saw in B.C. last year. It also impacts the price of the food we are buying when we see climate change-fuelled droughts and other wet-weather events disrupting agricultural production.

I will put it in some other language I know the Conservative Party will understand very well. We cannot opt out of inflation by investing in crypto. We opt out of inflation by getting off our reliance on fossil fuels, where we are at the mercy of global markets that can be upset by the actions of a foreign dictator. To reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we need to incentivize the switch to clean, domestically controlled energy sources that are not at the mercy of outside influences. The best way to do this is by pricing pollution as well as supporting the switch to cleaner alternatives. Whether it would be affordability, national security, economic growth or climate change, pricing pollution is our most important and effective tool.

The solution to affordability is not to make emissions great again. The solution involves targeted solutions like the ones we have brought in over the last seven years and the ones that we propose to bring in through Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. These new measures include the Canada housing benefit, which will deliver an extra $500 for low-income renters. It includes bringing in the new Canada dental benefit for children under the age of 12 who do not have dental insurance, which will involve payments of up to $650 per child per year. It involves doubling the goods and services tax credit that will provide $2.5 billion in total to 11 million recipients.

This, of course, builds on our history of cutting taxes for the middle class by raising taxes on the top 1% and delivering the Canada child benefit, which has raised over 300,000 children out of poverty and puts more money back in the pockets of nine in 10 families. This year, we have cut child care costs in half right across the country and are going to get down to $10 a day in the next four years.

We know that climate action can be done in a way that saves people money. It is also why we launched the greener homes grant, so people can do home energy retrofits, and the greener homes loan for some of the deeper retrofits that people need to do, so they can save money on their energy bills. It is also why we are supporting Canadians to switch to zero-emission vehicles, with a $5,000 grant for this type of option.

In my home province of B.C., in the first quarter of 2022, over 15.5% of new vehicle sales have been for zero-emission vehicles. These are Canadians who are going to be saving a significant amount of money on their gas bills.

This is why we have brought in the price on pollution, which is, again, putting more money back into the pockets of eight out of 10 families, and is one of the most cost-efficient and affordable ways of climate action.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always it is a true pleasure for me to rise in this venerable House to speak to the opposition motion on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. I would like to state that I agree with neither the premise of the Conservative motion before us today nor the ask of the motion. Our federal government is doing all it can to support our most vulnerable in Canada and those most impacted by inflation and the rising costs of living.

I am also a firm believer in carbon pricing and that the federal government needs to continue to move as urgently as possible to meet its Paris Accord targets and its net-zero target by 2015. Climate change is accelerating faster than has been predicted and it would be the height of irresponsibility for the federal government, indeed any level of government in any province or territory across Canada, to slow down its efforts toward achieving net zero by 2015. If anything, we need to double down on our efforts and be very clear in showing our progress to Canadians.

Let me speak a bit more to the issue of the rising costs of living in Canada. It is indeed a serious concern. As we well know, the pandemic has caused financial challenges and uncertainty for many Canadians. We also know that inflation, a global phenomenon that is a lingering result of the pandemic and exacerbated by worldwide events, is making life harder for a lot of Canadians. The job market is very strong and businesses are doing well, but we also know that despite this, it is harder for a lot of Canadians to pay their bills at the end of the month. That is why the federal government support programs continue to be so important.

We have an affordability plan that includes many important measures. This is support to the most vulnerable people in our communities, to help them at a time when the cost of living is a real challenge for many Canadians. For example, the enhanced Canada worker benefit puts up to $2,400 more into the pockets of low-income families, starting this year. This results in more than $1.7 billion in new support this year alone, and it will make life more affordable for our lowest-paid workers.

We have also increased old age security by 10% for seniors 75 and older, which will provide up to an additional $800 for more than three million seniors over the first year.

We have signed agreements on early learning and child care with every single province and territory. This is to achieve the goal of an affordable universal system of early learning and child care, so that every mother who wants to go to work has the comfort of knowing that her children are being well cared for and well taught.

Furthermore, benefits including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are indexed to inflation, as is the federal minimum wage, which we increased to $15 an hour and indexed to inflation, making it now $15.55 an hour.

Just last week, the federal government tabled two important pieces of legislation to address commitments we have made. Bill C-30 would double the goods and services tax credit for six months. This would provide 2.5 billion more dollars in additional targeted support to the roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors. Single Canadians without children would receive an extra $234, and couples with two children would receive an extra $467 this year alone. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average. The proposed extra GST credit amounts would be paid through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump-sum payment before the end of the year.

Bill C-31 would enact two important measures: the Canada dental benefit and a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. The Canada dental benefit would be provided to families with income under $90,000 who do not have access to dental insurance, starting this year. Direct payments totalling up to $1,300 over the next two years would be provided to cover dental care expenses for each child under 12 years old. This is the first stage of the federal government's plan to deliver dental coverage for families with adjusted net income under $90,000. It would allow children under 12 to receive the dental care they need while the government works to develop a comprehensive national dental care program.

The one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit would deliver a $500 payment to 1.8 million renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. This more than doubles the federal government's budget 2022 commitment, reaching twice as many Canadians as initially promised. The federal benefit will be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families or below $20,000 for individuals who pay at least 30% of their adjusted net income on rent.

These pieces of legislation represent the latest suite of measures to support Canadians with the rising cost of living. I am proud of how our federal government is being thoughtful and deliberate about how we are supporting Canadians who are most in need, while also being very conscious about not unleashing too much new spending so as to worsen current levels of inflation.

Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of attending a number of events in my riding. I heard from many parents who were very anxious to have their day care operators sign on to the federal national day care plan so that they can save 50% of their costs per child by the end of this year. I also heard from low-income seniors who are really happy to hear about the dental care benefit. While this year they will not benefit from it, as it is only available to children in households of $90,000 or less and if they are under the age of 12, they are very excited about the prospect of being able to access it by the end of next year. It will be a lifeline for many.

On the topic of housing, as it has been said many times in this House, the federal government made a significant commitment in budget 2022 to double the number of new homes that we will build over the next 10 years. The federal government, provinces and territories, cities and towns, the private sector and non-profits are all pulling together to build the homes a growing country needs.

The federal government's affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the Canadians who need it most, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation. Many of the most vulnerable Canadians are receiving more financial support now than they did last year, and they will continue to receive new support in the weeks and months to come.

I would be remiss to not thank the opposition for bringing up the subject of climate change. Climate action is an economic necessity. The global economy is changing, and the future economic growth will be more and more dependent on clean energy. It is no longer up for debate that a national price on pollution is the most effective market incentive for climate action, and Canada's climate action incentive puts more money into the pockets of eight out of every 10 families in Canada.

Budget 2022 included climate action measures ranging from a new Canada growth fund, which will help attract the investments we need to build a cleaner and more prosperous Canada, to an innovation and investment agency, which will help our traditional industries thrive in a changing global economy and our small businesses continue to grow and create good middle-class jobs.

The federal government understands that many Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. The targeted support programs I have mentioned offer real help to the most vulnerable, are fiscally responsible and will not further fuel inflation.

In addition, we will continue to put a price on pollution. The federal government will continue to urgently implement the many measures we have announced over the last almost seven years, and we will ensure that we meet our Paris accord targets and our net-zero targets by 2050. Our ability to live, our quality of life, our future depends on us accelerating our fight against climate change and not stopping, as the Conservatives are asking us to do.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity as I rise in the House to talk about what is happening in another part of the world. It deserves our attention and it is important to note. Since the brutal murder of the young Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini, a widespread grassroots feminist movement has been rising in Iran. These people have the exceptional courage to stand up for freedom and democracy. I want to commend their courage. I am extremely worried about their situation, and I hope that the federal government will use every political and diplomatic tool it has to stand up for human rights, especially the rights of women in Iran.

Today we are discussing a Conservative Party motion. It is the first motion moved by the new Conservative leader during an opposition day. I thought a new leader would bring in new ideas and renewal and that we would finally talk about other things; but no, the new Conservative Party leader wants to talk about the carbon tax. For 10 years that is all the Conservative Party has been talking about, incessantly. They are absolutely obsessed with this. When they do not know what else to do, they talk about the carbon tax. I just want them to know that it is over, case closed.

The carbon tax is a good tool that works. It is not necessarily a cure-all. It will not solve every issue, but it works well in terms of putting pressure on the market so that companies and consumers adapt and change their behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint.

It is rather funny to see the Conservatives today doubling down on this obsession yet again. This is actually a market mechanism, so I do not understand. They love the free market and capitalism, and this tool relies on supply and demand, on prices and costs. However, they do not support it.

The Conservatives are also missing the point by thinking that suspending or cancelling the price on pollution is really going to make a difference in people's lives. There is no doubt that we are currently facing inflation and a rising cost of living. We see it with housing, heating, gasoline and groceries. The prices of some products are going up 12%, 13%, 15%, and sometimes even as high as 30%. The carbon tax is not responsible for that and getting rid of it will not change anything.

As my colleagues pointed out earlier, it makes no difference whatsoever to Quebeckers, because the federal carbon tax does not exist in Quebec. Where were the Conservative members from Quebec when there party was planning its opposition day? Maybe they were asleep at the wheel of their gas-powered car, pun intended.

The NDP wants to help people in tangible ways, so it forced the Liberals to take action on a number of fronts that will produce results. Bill C‑31, which was introduced when we came back to the House, is proof. The bill includes some very interesting provisions that we have been pushing for for a long time. The NDP caucus secured major gains for people, starting with the $500 rental housing benefit top-up. No, that will not change the entire housing market overnight, but it will provide some relief and may help people. In Quebec, 580,000 Quebeckers will collect that cheque because they are already on the list of people who need the federal housing benefit.

The second measure doubles the GST tax credit. Millions of people in Canada will benefit from that over the next six months. It can range from $250 to $500 per person. This is intended for the most vulnerable people in our society, those who need help the most. It is not an inflationary measure, since the proposed measures are not uniform. This is not intended for people who earn $70,000 or $100,000 a year; this is for people who are really struggling to pay for groceries or housing right now. The NDP made this happen. The leader of the NDP demanded this for six months, and he finally got it in Bill C‑31.

As for dental coverage for children, many people told us during the last election that it would be great if teenagers, seniors and children had access to coverage for essential dental care, which is obviously not aesthetic. We tried to get a real dental care program for this year, but it was too hard to get it up and running in time.

Therefore, as a first step, we are offering a compensation cheque. This is a temporary step, an interim step, but still a significant one. People who do not have supplemental insurance and who wish to take their child to the dentist must keep the bill so they can receive a maximum amount of $650 for this year, as well as a maximum amount of $650 for next year. We are then talking about a maximum amount totalling $1,300 per child.

I think that while waiting for next year, this can provide significant assistance to middle-class families who do not have supplemental insurance. Next year, we will be able to offer a program that will enable people to go to the dentist and to receive immediate payment or get their bill reimbursed. Next year, we will extend the program to include teenagers, people with disabilities and seniors aged 65 years and up in Quebec and across Canada.

Just because the NDP secured this win, it does not mean that it will stop working hard or putting pressure on the government to do more, because a lot more needs to be done. However, we think that the measures being implemented and what we asked of the government are real solutions. The tangible actions we forced the Liberal government to take will provide real benefits to the lives of ordinary Canadians. In contrast, the Conservatives' solution is extremely ideological and, in reality, it will not help all that many people. In fact, it goes against all the efforts we should be making to combat climate change.

They present the carbon tax, which is a price on pollution, as a bad thing. Are the Conservatives saying that polluting should be a right? Are they saying that pollution should not cost anything and be free of consequences? Systematically, year after year, under the Conservative government and, now, under the Liberals, we have missed our greenhouse gas emission targets, which is extremely worrisome. Canada lags behind most other countries. We continue to subsidize oil companies that are currently making record profits. We do not have the spine to tax them more, while the CEOs keep pocketing millions of dollars.

Now the Conservative Party is presenting a 25-year-old idea, one that is outdated. Furthermore, it comes at a very odd time when eastern Quebec, the Magdalen Islands and a good part of the Maritimes have just been devastated by hurricane Fiona.

This motion from the official opposition completely disregards the true urgency of the climate crisis, and that these disasters, hurricanes, droughts, floods and forest fires will occur with greater frequency and intensity. We will be increasingly unable to control the planet's climate and temperature and people will suffer more, infrastructure and homes will be destroyed and villages and roads will have to be moved. That will come at an enormous cost. The Conservatives never talk about the cost of inaction in the face of the climate crisis. Even people who are not what one would call big bad socialists are worried. Insurance companies in Canada are worried because they know it is going to cost tens of billions of dollars in the coming years.

The Conservative Party is completely disconnected from this reality and is suggesting that we get rid of the one measure that sort of works. I will come back to this, but even though this measure more or less works, we should be doing more. The Conservatives' motion is completely irresponsible and shows no regard for future generations or for the people who will suffer and are suffering from climate disturbances and the increase in so-called natural disasters. We must do more.

I now want to talk about what the Liberal government is not doing. Not only does it refuse to eliminate oil subsidies, but it has also failed to develop a plan for a just transition. We need to come up with a strategy to support the industries and the unions that represent all of the workers across Quebec and Canada to ensure that we make this energy transition, not only for the sake of the environment and the climate, but also to save jobs and create new ones in renewable energy or find new ways of working in existing sectors.

This is 2022. In 2019 the government promised to introduce a bill concerning a just green energy transition that respects workers. It has yet to do anything, even though this objective is spelled out in the mandate letters of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Labour. We are still awaiting such a bill.

I hope it comes soon because we need it. We need it if we want to solve this problem, meet our targets and respect Canada's commitments on the international stage. It is quite unsettling: Canada cannot seem to make good on the promises it makes out there. Canada signed the Paris Agreement and made commitments. The Canadian government signed the COP26 declaration, but it does not act in a consistent way.

The Liberals are extremely good at patting themselves on the back and bragging about their targets on the world stage, but they are unable to follow through. Now is the time to act.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. This is, obviously, a motion on combatting inflation. I would like to talk about housing, which is one very important aspect of combatting inflation.

For example, the government claims that Bill C‑31 will help the least fortunate households in Canada pay rent and that they will receive a one-time payment to help them pay rent.

Who could be against that? However, this measure is an attempt to make up for the lack of federal investments in housing over the past 30 years. If the federal government had been investing in housing over the past 30 years, there would be more housing units on the market and housing prices would not be this high. The government now wants to spend all kinds of money on this measure to make up for the lack of investment over 30 years.

Would it not have been better to invest that money in concrete and build homes to increase supply and make housing less expensive in the coming years?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments made by the member.

We have two pieces of legislation: Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Both of those measures fall under what the member is advocating for, with a targeted approach to helping those most in need through the GST rebate and the dental insurance program. Canadians would benefit by them, but it would appear the Conservatives would like to continue to debate the legislation.

Can the member offer any thoughts in regard to how we can assist Canadians by ensuring that this legislation passes in a timely fashion?

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

It is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West, but before I speak to this legislation, I would like to let everyone in Atlantic Canada know that my thoughts and prayers are with them as they recover from this weekend's terrible storm. This is a very difficult time, with property destruction, injuries and deaths, and I know that the rest of the country stands with them and is ready to help with whatever they need.

Over the summer, I spoke with many constituents, and all of them had the same message: The cost of living is really starting to hurt. Seniors are struggling to get by on their fixed incomes, and all Canadians know about the high cost of groceries, at least those of us who actually buy our own groceries. I am talking about grocery prices that are up by almost 11%. They are rising at the fastest pace in 40 years.

Here we are in week two of our new parliamentary session. Is the government talking about reducing the sky-high cost of food? Is the government talking about stopping planned payroll tax hikes, such as the tax increases on January 1 that will reduce everybody's paycheques, or the coming carbon tax price increase on April Fool's Day, which is all part of the government's plan to triple the carbon tax? Is this what we are debating? No, we are here debating legislation that was born out of a cynical coalition deal between the NDP and the Liberals to keep this tired, worn-out government in power.

Yes, this legislation, Bill C-30, is nothing more than a scheme cooked up between the NDP and the Liberals through a tweet. In the summer, the NDP leader tweeted that the Liberals needed to do this or that to count on his unwavering support, and the government responded with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Close to $5 billion will be used and, to use the words of the Minister of Tourism last week, thrown into the lake to keep the NDP happy.

I do not believe that government should be throwing money into the lake just to cling to power. Governments exist to serve the people who elected them, so today I have good news for Canadians. Our party just elected a new leader who is well versed in economics. He is a man who actually understands how economic works. For years, the member for Carleton warned the government about reckless and out-of-control spending. What was his simple message? It was that excessive government spending would lead to out-of-control inflation. Well, guess what? Inflation is rampant and out of control. Our new leader predicted this, and he has a solid plan to get us out of this. In the meantime, we will continue to hold our Prime Minister to account and work hard to encourage the government to implement sensible policy.

Let us talk about this piece of legislation, Bill C-30, and the financial implications for our treasury, our economy and, most importantly, the everyday taxpayer. The government is telling us that this a limited, one-time doubling of the GST rebate that will provide $467 for the average family. When I look at this, on the one hand, who will argue if the government wants to hand them some cash? It is welcomed relief coming at a difficult time, but it is a short-term band-aid that does not get to the heart of the problem. If we do not fix the core problem, then more band-aids will be proposed, and indeed we are already seeing this. While the government says that this is a one-time payment, it is openly admitting that this is just the start of a larger government spending package. Bill C-31, for example, includes more inflation boost in cash injections, which is just the start of an even bigger spending program that the health minister cannot even quantify right now.

I think this would be a good opportunity to take a moment to provide the government with some information that it may not understand. You see, I, like many of my Conservative colleagues, studied economics. Like me, many of my Conservative colleagues have run businesses and created jobs prior to being elected to this great House. I used sound economic principles to build my successful business and run my own household with the help of my wife. Together, we understood some of the basic economic principles and used them successfully. Now, we are not particularly smarter than other Canadians. In fact, I would suggest that most Canadians understand these basic economic principles and use them every day to manage their own households.

What are some of these basic principles? First, there is only so much money. It is not infinite. There is not a magic money tree in the backyard where we can go when we need a little extra cash. No, we have to make some hard choices. We have a limited amount of money with unlimited ways to spend it, and so we have to sit down together, weigh the pros and cons of the various options available and make a choice. Sometimes that choice is hard, especially right now. Families have to choose between inflated food prices and paying the carbon tax on their heating bills. These are not easy choices, but people are creative. Families find ways to scrimp and save in one area to allow them to spend in another. That is the first principle: Money is finite.

The next principle is that borrowing money is like playing with fire. It needs to be done very carefully and in a controlled manner. Yes, sometimes we need to borrow money, when we are borrowing to purchase a house, for example, but loan payments can become a heavy financial burden, especially when interest rates start to rise.

That is why most families understand that borrowing should be temporary, and that is why, when loans get paid off, there is great celebration in a household and a wonderful feeling of freedom. That is the second principle: borrow with caution. How does this apply to the government? If the government applied these two simple principles, the results would be lower taxes and lower debt. Canadians could keep more money in their pockets and have the freedom to spend their money the way they choose.

There is a third, very important principle I also want to talk about. This one is a larger principle that governments really must understand and apply. The third principle is the law of supply and demand. The easiest way to understand this is through an example. If consumers have $10, and the store has 10 loaves of bread, then consumers will pay $1 for each loaf of bread. If the government suddenly gives consumers an extra $10, but the amount of bread does not increase, now people are going to pay $2 for each loaf of bread. That is inflation. The loaf of bread goes from costing $1 to $2, and that is exactly what is happening in our country right now.

The government has dramatically boosted the amount of money available to people with $500 billion in the last two years. This extra money has bid up the price of everything that we buy. This extra money has also been tacked onto our national debt, resulting in increased interest payments, an obligation that our children's children will have to deal with long after we are gone from this place. When the Prime Minister famously said he does not think about economic policy, this simple principle is what he was not thinking about, and because he was not thinking, we are in this mess today.

I will once again remind everyone that the Conservative leader does understand these principles and is committed to running government according to them. What would it look like if Conservatives were in charge right now? Let us say we had a Conservative prime minister and that we believed the government should provide some GST tax relief to Canadians, just as Bill C-30 proposes. How would we implement something like this?

First, we would understand that money is finite and that we cannot go to a magic money tree to implement this bill. We would task our government to find savings somewhere else to pay for this new program. We would recognize that a new dollar spent would require a dollar to be saved somewhere else, just like all Canadians do every day when they manage their own households. If the government behaved like this, it would not take long for inflation to back down and for taxes to be reduced. That is how Conservatives would govern.

I need to come back to the topic of high prices and the rampant inflation that we see every day. There is a grocery store a few blocks down 22nd Street from my constituency office. The folks who shop there know that I sometimes set up shop there on the weekends to shake hands, hand out reusable grocery bags and chat with my constituents in Saskatoon West.

I also shop there for groceries with my wife Cheryl. Cheryl and I have seen our grocery bill go up every month. It may be salad ingredients, such as lettuce and tomatoes. It might be meat and potatoes, or the side dishes and vegetables. Bread, milk, coffee, pop and chips, everything, has increased in price, and prepackaged portions are decreasing. I am not just talking about small increases. Look at the cost of meat today versus two years ago. It has nearly doubled in price. That is 100% inflation.

Chicken breasts used to go for five in a package for $10. Now we only get three for that same price. They have cut the portion size to hide the cost increase. I was just at Costco this weekend, and I bought a four-pack of bacon. It used to cost $20, but now it costs $30. That is 50% more.

Is this a result of Russia invading Ukraine, as the Liberals would have us believe? How much beef, chicken, lettuce, potato chips, rice, coffee and milk do we get from Ukraine? It is probably zero. The vast majority is farmed and harvested right here in Canada. It is the domestic policy of the federal government, such as printing cash for the past two years, that has put Canada in this inflation period. It is domestic policies, such as the Bank of Canada aiding and abetting the federal government by underwriting its massive debt load instead of sticking to its mandate to control inflation. It is domestic policies, such as the carbon tax and fertilizer reductions, that are hurting our farmers and causing food prices to soar. It is domestic policies, such as ramming massive spending legislation through the House of Commons to keep a marriage of convenience with the NDP alive.

As I wrap up, I want to focus on accountability. Who is accountable for the $5 billion the government is shovelling out the door to satisfy a Twitter outburst from the NDP leader? I know it will not be the Liberals and the NDP, as they ram the legislation through Parliament and pat themselves on the back like they like to do. Instead, it will be the people of Saskatoon West left holding the bag through more inflation, higher taxes and reduced benefits from the government. Rodney Dangerfield famously said he gets no respect. Unfortunately for Canadians, from the Liberal government, they get no respect either.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, no. 1. As my colleague has already mentioned, inflation is a cause for concern for Canadians and their families. While inflation is definitely a global challenge, the impacts on Canadians are nonetheless real, which is why our government has been working directly to help Canadians have more money in their pockets.

Investments we have already made in the last two federal budgets and the new measures in today's legislation and in Bill C-31 will help Canadians who need it most. For example, the government's $12.1-billion affordability plan includes doubling the GST credit for six months, as proposed in Bill C-30. This would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support this year, to roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit. It will also enhance the Canada workers benefit at a cost of $1.7 billion in new support for workers this year to put up to an additional $2,400 in the pockets of low-income families. As well, there is a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75, which will provide up to $766 more for seniors. That will impact over three million seniors this year alone.

The affordability plan includes cutting child care fees by an average of 50% by the end of this year. Looking at the child care fees in my riding, for example, families are paying $1,800 a month per child, at least. When we think about it, a 50% reduction in fees means $900 back in the pockets of those families, not to mention that in some families, both parents do not go back to work. This, in essence, supports families in having two incomes. That is almost a mortgage payment for many families.

Dental care is another one that we have added to the affordability plan for Canadian families earning less than $90,000 a year, starting this year with hundreds of thousands of children under 12. That will obviously be extended to seniors and individuals with disabilities in years to come.

We also must remember that our affordability plan has indexed to inflation a number of benefits, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. The federal minimum wage, which we increased to $15 an hour, is also indexed to inflation. Also, a $500 payment will go out to 1.8 million Canadian renters this year who are struggling with the cost of housing.

I want to talk a little bit about the housing challenges that we have experienced and some of the solutions. My colleagues have already eloquently touched on some of the aforementioned points, including the doubling of the GST credit for six months that is proposed in Bill C-30. I would like to focus my remaining time on the housing measures proposed in Bill C-31, introduced by the Minister of Health earlier this week, which is a critical component alongside Bill C-30 in making life more affordable for Canadians.

Our government believes that everyone should have a safe and affordable place to call home. However, that goal, one that was taken as a given for many previous generations, is increasingly out of reach for far too many Canadians. Young people cannot imagine being able to afford the house they grew up in. Rents in our major cities continue to climb, pushing people further and further away from where they work. All of this has an impact on our economy as well.

This is why Bill C-31 proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program that would consist of a tax-free payment of $500 to provide direct support to low-income renters. This payment would provide direct help to those most exposed to inflation and those who are experiencing housing affordability challenges. With the support of this House, the payment would be launched by the end of the year. Specifically, the benefit would be available to renters with adjusted net incomes below $35,000 for families, or $20,000 for individuals.

The Canada Revenue Agency would deliver the money through an attestation-based application process. In order to determine eligibility, the CRA would proceed with an up-front verification of the applicant's income, age and residency for tax purposes. Applicants would need to have filed their 2021 tax return and provide information and attest that they are paying at least 30% of their adjusted net income on rent, are paying rent for their own primary residence in Canada, which would include the address of the rental property, the amount of rent paid in 2022, and the landlord's contact information, as well as consent to the CRA to verify their information to confirm eligibility.

It is estimated that 1.8 million low-income renters, including students, who are struggling with the cost of housing would be eligible for this new support. In total, the proposed funding will be $1.2 billion, of which $475 million were committed in budget 2022. This is a one-time top-up and would not reduce other federal income-tested benefits, such as the Canada workers benefit, the Canada child benefit, the GST credit and the guaranteed income supplement.

That is not to say this is our only measure that impacts people who are having affordability challenges with housing. The one-time top-up is part of a broader set of initiatives introduced in budget 2022, indeed probably the largest chapter in the federal budget, that will provide more than $9 billion to help make housing more affordable, including by alleviating the supply shortages that are one of the main causes of the high price of housing. These are measures that will put Canada on the path to double our housing construction over the next decade, including with a new multi-billion dollar housing accelerator fund.

Our government has a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable by both funding and incentivizing new builds and by helping people get into the housing market.

We are, for the first time, directly tying federal funding for infrastructure in transit to a requirement for municipalities to approve the building of more homes. All of this is in addition to further investments in affordable housing, the building of new social housing units and an additional investment of half a billion dollars to help end homelessness.

While no government can solve the challenges of affordability overnight, we remain hard at work to address the cost of living and set Canadians up for greater success. We are also doing so by laying the foundation for longer-term economic growth.

What today's legislation means is that most of our most vulnerable in Canada will receive more financial support now and, when combined with other measures in our affordability plan, will continue to receive new support in the weeks and months to come.

For the Canadians who need it most, this will make their lives more affordable exactly at the right time. This is why I strongly encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Whitby. Tonight is the first time since June that I have formally risen in the House. I would like to begin by greeting my colleagues. I hope that they had a great vacation and summer in their ridings with their families and constituents.

We are here tonight to debate Bill C‑30 which, along with Bill C‑31, represents a suite of federal measures to make life more affordable for vulnerable Canadians.

I think it is very important to put things in context. Over the last couple of years, we have seen the effects of supply chains that have been rocked by the pandemic. There have been weather events. Of course, there is the war in Ukraine, caused by Russia's invasion. There are also demographic changes. The economy, in Canada and in other countries, is very robust. Unemployment is very low, and that creates inflation in Canada and around the world.

I quite appreciated my colleague from the Bloc Québécois who talked about this being a supply-side economic issue. That is what I was trying to mention, while working on my French. Hopefully it came through in the translation. The fact is that some of what we are seeing right now is being driven by factors outside of Canada that relate to the products, goods and services that we, as global citizens, want to make sure we have as Canadian consumers. It comes down to two issues when we are talking about economics and affordability. The Bank of Canada has a role with respect to monetary policy and setting interest rates and trying to keep inflation to around 2%, and the Government of Canada has a role and obligation that pairs with that, albeit independent of the Bank of Canada, which is around fiscal policy.

It was mentioned today in the House, I do not think it needs to be repeated, that it is important that all parliamentarians respect the independence of the Bank of Canada and its expertise in setting monetary policy. Our job here of course is to perhaps understand the implications of those decisions, but to really focus on the government's fiscal decision-making as it relates to and couples with monetary policy. We have seen the Bank of Canada acting. It has increased its benchmark rate, which is having an impact on Canadians. It is quelling some of that demand. In fact, we are looking at forecasts right now with respect to trying to avoid a recessionary period, not only in Canada but indeed around the world.

I had the opportunity to review the decision by the Federal Reserve in the United States, which has significantly increased its interest rate. There will be a conversation that will have to be had by the Bank of Canada as to whether or not it will match that rate, such that we are not impacted from a consumer side with respect to imports and the value of the American dollar going higher, or whether or not we will try to pair a bit lower, such that our exporters can benefit with respect to that economic side. It is complex. I do not pretend to stand here as a pure economic theorist, but those are the decisions that are being made right now.

That brings us to this conversation on affordability, because we know particularly vulnerable Canadians are struggling right now. During the pandemic, I will remind members, the government was there to help support the small businesses and individuals who were impacted the most. As we come out of COVID–19, as we move beyond the pandemic, it is also our responsibility to look at the situation and be able to rein in government spending.

I will go on record to say, and it has not really been talked about here in the House, particularly by His Majesty's loyal opposition, that the government is actually in a surplus situation. I think that is pertinent right now given the fact the government has had to spend. It would be unwise if the government had not stepped up and provided that economic support at that time of uncertainty to make sure our economy continued to function and move forward, and indeed to set the stage for where we are at right now.

Again, it is Keynesian economics at its core. Government spends during a down period when help is needed and then reins back spending when the economy is strong, as is happening right now.

How do we try to help support Canadians without impacting what the work of the Bank of Canada is doing right now, which is to try to bring down demand? I think it is what we doing right now with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, which are targeted measures. These are not just spending measures to provide support to all Canadians, including some of those who are the most wealthy. This is targeted to those who really need help the most.

I want to give some context to what we are talking about today. Bill C-30 proposes to double the GST credit for the next six months for both individuals and families who are eligible. That is about 11 million Canadians. The benefits at an individual level would be for someone without children with a household income under $49,000. That is what we are talking about in terms of providing very targeted support to those who need it. For those who have families, the example would be under $58,000. For anything above and beyond that, these individuals would not necessarily be eligible for these supports.

It is extremely important because it is targeting those who need the help without impacting Canada's fiscal position. This is a $2.5-billion spending measure. That is not insignificant, but it is not going to disrupt the work that the government is doing to rein in spending, at the same time understanding that the Bank of Canada has a mandate to bring down inflation. Indeed, in some contexts of what we hear His Majesty's loyal opposition calling for, the government is doing it. Perhaps that is not the narrative they want to spin, but we are working to do just that.

I just want to take a moment to speak about Bill C-31. I understand it is a different piece of legislation, but they are interconnected. This is about providing affordability measures on housing with a $500 housing benefit for those who are vulnerable, and providing dental care. We have heard great impassioned debate and context about how important this is. The dental care is for children who are under 12 whose household income is under $90,000 and who do not already have private insurance coverage.

Right now, conversations continue on how best to deliver this. I have asked some questions in the House of my NDP colleagues. There is merit in working out program delivery with the provinces, who are closest on the ground, who are going to be able to be there to help implement this and who would have relationships with dentists. I understand that right now this is an interim stop-gap measure to help provide that support to families.

I, as a parliamentarian, may disagree with the NDP assertion that this should be a federally administered program. Perhaps it should be for indigenous communities, where the Government of Canada shares a very close constitutional relationship. I think that is clear. Perhaps it should be for military families if there is a way to roll that out through the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Otherwise, this is best suited for the provincial level.

I recognize that my time is coming to a close this evening. What I way to say and what I want to reiterate is that I think these measures are reasonable, balanced and targeted to Canadians who need the support the most. We are in a situation where there is some level of economic uncertainty. Inflation is coming down. The Bank of Canada is doing its work. The government is responding in a responsible manner to not drive additional liquidity at a time when the Bank of Canada is reducing its interest rates accordingly.

I look forward to the conversation and the questions from my colleagues here tonight.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for her speech. However, I have a few concerns. First, when it comes to Bill C‑31, there is nothing about taking care of seniors' oral health. We are nowhere near that point.

In Quebec, children under the age of 10 are already covered by a plan. In fact, there is an election campaign under way in Quebec right now. Unions and community groups have shared their demands in the context of this election campaign that will determine the next government in the National Assembly. The elephant in the room for them is the lack of health transfers, which would allow Quebec and the provinces to implement and improve their dental care plans. We are not talking about national dental insurance, but about health transfers of up to 35%.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are speaking today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I represent the riding of Victoria, and the riding includes the homelands of the Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt first nations, as well as part of the territory of the W’SANEC nations. It feels especially important to recognize first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, as September 30 is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. In my community, there will be a South Island powwow hosted by the Songhees Nation, as well as the annual Orange Shirt Day event.

I want to mention two incredible people in my riding who have poured their time and energy into this important work: Eddy Charlie and Kristin Spray. Eddy is a residential school survivor and he has dedicated himself to this work. We all have a responsibility to support the work of indigenous people and to stand in solidarity with survivors and communities today and every day moving forward.

This afternoon, we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that would double the GST rebate. This morning, we debated Bill C-31, a bill that would deliver $500 in rental support to low-income Canadians and momentously support kids under 12 in accessing dental care as the first step in the creation of a national dental care program, the largest expansion of our health care in a generation.

I mention these two bills together because at a time when Canadians are struggling with the skyrocketing cost of living, they are two critical pieces that will help families, students, seniors and the people who need it most. These are Canadians who are scrambling to make rent who were already struggling to make ends meet. Some are going hungry because food has become the most relentlessly rising cost in household budgets. The usage of food banks has tripled in many places, which is why we have been pushing, in addition to the GST rebate, for a windfall profits tax on grocery stores and big box stores to put that money back into Canadians' pockets. People need help and they need it now.

When it comes to doubling the GST credit, we are talking about 11 million Canadians who would get some relief. However, that is not going to be enough on its own, and it should have come a lot sooner. In fact, over six months ago, our NDP team had been calling on the government to double the GST tax credit. We wanted a way to get help to people, and in a way that would not drive up inflation. We have relentlessly pushed for this, and now, finally, I am thrilled that we have successfully forced the Liberals to act to get help to 11 million Canadians who need it the most.

We also forced the Liberals to double the GST credit and are forcing the Liberals to deliver dental care and a rental housing benefit. The rental housing benefit would help 1.8 million low-income Canadians. This year's dental care benefit would be life-changing for many families, and it is only the first interim step in the development of a federal dental care program.

I hope we can take a moment to feel how big of a deal this is. Let us take a moment, because this will mean so much to families that right now cannot access the dental care they need. Families will no longer have to make the heartbreaking choice between paying for dental care for their kids and paying their rent or groceries. Parents have told me that being able to get dental care for their kids is going to be life-changing.

The most common surgery performed on preschool children in Canada is treatment of dental decay. Let that sink in for a moment. However, we are not stopping at kids under 12. We are going to get dental care for all Canadians who need it.

I have shared a lot of stories in the House from people I have met whose lives would be transformed by dental care, such as seniors who right now cannot chew their food, gig workers who miss days at work because of the excruciating pain and a person living with a disability who has been prescribed pain medication for her dental pain but cannot afford to get her teeth fixed. However, I want to share one more story, and I hope that my Conservative colleagues will listen closely.

I spoke to a teacher who, when she was starting out, got a part-time position as an educational assistant. At that time, she was working hard as a single mom with three young kids. She wanted to build her career, but as a part-time EA, she did not get benefits. She made the difficult choice to go on social assistance, to keep working and to have her entire monthly paycheque clawed back, because at least on social assistance she could access dental care for her kids.

If my Conservative colleagues claim to be fighting for single moms, dignity and respect, and if they claim to be fighting for small business owners, they should give them dental care. The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech on dental care, noticeably avoided mentioning dental care even once. Is he afraid to because he knows Canadians want this?

He also said that politicians should have to follow the same rules as single mothers and small business owners. Well, I would ask him this: Does he believe that single mothers and small business owners should have the same benefits as politicians? I ask because as an MP, the Leader of the Opposition has been using publicly funded dental care for two decades, all while voting against giving dental care to single mothers and small business owners.

The Conservatives have been saying they want to turn hurt into hope. Well, people are hurting. They are dealing with—

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, which is an act to amend the Income Tax Act as it relates to the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax credits. It is a bill that is very much focused on targeted tax relief for the most deserving in our communities. However, before I speak to the bill, I just want to quickly state that as this is the first time I am speaking in the House since the summer recess ended, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. I hope all colleagues across the entire House had a good summer.

As we heard earlier during question period, the devastation caused by hurricane Fiona is top of mind for all of us. We have seen the kind of devastation that this particular storm has caused in Atlantic Canada and in eastern Quebec. Just like everyone, my thoughts are with everyone who has been impacted. There have been a couple of fatalities. We are thinking of the families that have been impacted.

I can assure the House, given my role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness and in working with the minister, that the entire government, including the Prime Minister, was working hard, as soon as we knew this storm was coming our way, to make sure we were prepared. That involved working very closely with the provincial governments and local municipal governments so that all necessary steps were taken to prepare for this storm. Because of that, we are seeing all of the recovery efforts taking place at the moment.

Just this morning, very early, I was glad to join the Prime Minister and the member for Ottawa South in thanking some of the crews from Hydro Ottawa that were departing for Nova Scotia. We thanked them for what they were doing, as what Canadians always do is look after each other.

During the summer, like perhaps all members, I obviously spent a lot of time in my community. One of the things I always do is knock on doors during the summer months to talk to constituents of mine. I ask two very simple questions: “How can I help you?” and “What kinds of issues are of concern to you?”

It will not come as a surprise to any member, as I have been hearing this from members of all sides of the House, that the cost of living and the rate of inflation are big concerns for everyone. However, I also heard about the need for affordable child care. So many parents I spoke to asked me when $10-a-day child care was coming to their community, the one I represent right here in Ottawa Centre. They were very important conversations, and parents told me again and again that they could not wait for that program to be fully implemented. It is going to save them thousands of dollars, especially if they have more than one child.

This would be a tremendous savings, not to mention an opportunity for young children to socialize and take part in play-based learning. If we couple that with the full-day kindergarten that exists in Ontario for four- and five-year-olds, this is a really game-changing moment for children to thrive and for parents to be fully involved in the well-being of our economy by getting good jobs so they can grow in their professions. The savings are in the thousands of dollars for parents, and they are quite excited for the fact that this federal government, under our Prime Minister, has finally brought in a national child care and early learning system across the country.

However, that is only one measure that would help people with the cost of living. We need to make sure that inflation does not continue, although we are starting to see it abating and coming down. The inflation rate in Canada is perhaps one of the lowest compared with the rates of comparable G7 countries.

Regardless of that, we still need to take steps. We still need to take measures to find targeted reliefs for those who are the most marginalized in our society, the people who are on a low income, such as single mothers, who are working extremely hard every day, and I meet many people like that in my community of Ottawa Centre. We need to ensure that they have some targeted temporary relief, so they can live through this period.

That is why this particular legislation, Bill C-30, is so important. We know that this inflation is global in nature. There are many factors which have gone into and have caused this inflation. Canada is not immune to it.

Of course, the pandemic has had a big role to play. We have heard from other members that the unjustified, unwarranted war by Russia on Ukraine is another big reason that has caused this inflation.

We need, of course, to find a made-in-Canada solution to help people. That is why, as I said earlier, Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 are so important because they would provide those targeted reliefs for individuals.

In this case, under Bill C-30, we would double the GST tax credit for individuals and for families who have qualified for six months. That is real relief that would deliver about $2.5 billion in additional support to roughly 11 million Canadians. That is a very significant number of people who would benefit.

Just to give us an idea, if this legislation passes, and I hope all members will support this legislation, as I intend to do, from the period of July 2022 through June 2023, for the benefit year, eligible people would receive up to $467 for singles without children, $612 for married or common-law partners, $612 for single parents and $161 for each child under the age of 19. That would be quite a significant additional contribution to those individuals for them to work through this inflationary period. Of course, as we are starting to see from economic indicators, the inflation rate is starting to abate, and hopefully, that will continue to happen.

However, we are not stopping there. We would also be providing a one-time rent supplement of about $500, again to those who qualify for that kind of support, to ensure that they would be able to pay the extra costs they may be facing, and so they would not be at risk for homelessness. That is an important priority for our government, to ensure that people have access to affordable housing, and this particular support would be of significant benefit to them.

Lastly, a program initiative that is also much needed, which is very similar to our creating a national child care program, is what we are doing in creating a dental program for young people, to, again, make sure that young individuals, young Canadians, can have access to good dental care. It is essential to their health. By providing the support for those who are making, I believe, $90,000 or less, they would be able to get that dental care and be able to stay healthy.

This would only allow for them to live healthier lives, but it would also be yet more meaningful savings for individuals. We can really see a theme here of providing targeted supports that would really focus on people who need help and support the most. They also have huge benefits, whether it is getting good child care, improving one's health, or making sure that one does not become homeless.

This is going to help our economy. This is going to help all Canadians because our number one job as the government, and my focus as a member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, is to help build an economy that works for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always a little bit amazed that when the Conservatives are talking about inflationary pressures they neglect to talk about the profiteering that is going on with wealthy corporations, the war that is happening in Ukraine and the supply chain issues that have happened over the last two years. I suppose that if we use that same logic of making it attributable to one political party, in the U.K. we could call it Conservative inflation.

I am glad to hear that the member is supporting Bill C-30. As to Bill C-31, however, he talked about Liberal benefits. Why does he feel that Conservative MPs should have dental benefits but their constituents should not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

The government has introduced three measures to combat inflation. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the GST/HST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. Bill C‑31 contains two more measures: dental insurance for children 11 and under and housing assistance.

With respect to housing, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that the people of Quebec will not get their fair share, because this is a Canada housing benefit top-up. Quebec has had its own program for the past 25 years, and it has the right to opt out with compensation, but Bill C‑31 is silent on coordinating benefits. The same goes for dental insurance, which covers children 11 and under. Quebec's dental insurance covers children nine and under. The bill is silent on coordinating benefits.

On behalf of the government, will the parliamentary secretary promise to amend the bill to make sure it harmonizes with Quebec's programs so that my constituents will not be adversely affected?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that bills are introduced by the government. That is why I chided the government and not the NDP. Bill C-30 is well written. It is a few pages long and everything is clear. We support that bill. The Bloc Québécois was already asking the government last fall to increase the GST/HST credit to fight inflation, so we are very happy to see that.

Bill C-31 provides for rental assistance. As it now stands, people in Quebec will not be entitled to that assistance because Quebec has its own program, and the government did not think to harmonize the two. The bill is therefore poorly drafted when it comes to rental assistance.

The same is true for dental care because Quebec has insurance for children aged nine and under. Bill C-31 proposes measures for children aged 11 and under, and again there was no harmonization with the Quebec program. The government cut corners and that is what we are criticizing—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, whom I greatly respect, spoke at length about Bill C‑31. However, we are supposed to be debating Bill C‑30, which was introduced thanks to the hard work of the NDP. This bill will put an average of $500 into the pockets of Canadians who are struggling to cope with inflation. This measure will help around 12 million Canadians.

Bill C‑31 will provide dental care for all families with children under 12 and will help people who are renters. We are talking about nearly two million Canadians. The NDP had a hand in getting both of these bills introduced.

My colleague spoke about Bill C‑31 and we are currently debating Bill C‑30. I have a simple question: Which of the two NDP bills does he like best?

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

Madam Speaker, to address inflation, Bill C-30 proposes an additional GST rebate for the less fortunate. It is a good measure. We have been asking for this for quite some time, and we will be voting for it. It is good, but it is long overdue.

This measure was announced at the same time as the measures introduced in Bill C-31, namely rent relief and dental insurance. We support those measures in principle as well, but I feel the need to scold the government here. Bill C‑31 is really poorly constructed. It is sloppy. It is embarrassing that Parliament is considering something so poorly drafted, and I am choosing my words carefully.

With respect to rent relief, we are concerned that Quebeckers will not get their fair share because it is a supplement to the Canada housing benefit, which no one in Quebec receives. Quebec has had its own program since 1997, so we have the right to opt out with compensation. Our program is more generous, but the eligibility requirements are completely different. However, Bill C‑31 makes no mention of it. Once again, the government has forgotten that Quebec exists. There is no talk of aligning the two. It is embarrassing. It is as though the bill was written on the back of a napkin.

The same is true of the so-called dental insurance. If the parents pay any fees for a child who is 11 or under, then Ottawa will send them a big cheque. The programs are not properly aligned. What is worse, in Quebec, dental care is covered for children under the age of 10. People in Quebec are already paying for insurance. Once again, the government did not harmonize the programs, except to say that, if the services are covered by Quebec, then Ottawa will not pay and will not compensate Quebec for the cost of its insurance. However, if the parents pay for a service that is not covered, then they are entitled to a big cheque, even if Quebec is already covering most of the costs.

How much is Quebec being penalized? The government is not saying. This is sloppy work. The bill is badly written. It seems as though the department did not even calculate the cost of all this. All it did was reuse, dollar for dollar, the numbers that the Parliamentary Budget Officer came up with and the work that he did when he costed the NDP's proposal.

Once again, this shameful government forgot that Quebec exists. Once again, there is no alignment. This bill could be called “how to turn good principles into bad legislation” or “Quebec does not exist”. I say to the government, way to go. To add insult to injury, this government chose to brief journalists on this bill long before it briefed parliamentarians. This government is showing a serious lack of respect for the House.

I now want to talk a little about inflation. There are some well-known factors driving the surge in prices, such as changes in demand during and after the pandemic; supply chain problems and bottlenecks in response to fluctuating demand and health measures; China's COVID-zero policy, which is drastically disrupting supply lines and is a good example of the health measures I mentioned; the terrible war in Ukraine, which we all hope will come to an end soon; the radical transformation of the labour market and what is being referred to in the U.S. as the great resignation; the ongoing housing shortage; and natural disasters associated with climate change that are also having an impact on the global economy.

All of these factors have significantly affected the economy both here and abroad, and prices have skyrocketed. In a number of sectors, economic abundance has given way to Soviet-style scarcity.

We hope to be able to return to some semblance of normalcy, especially if we get serious about tackling climate change. In the meantime, however, families, people, businesses and farmers are bearing the brunt of this overall imbalance. The world is struggling, and there is no easy solution.

What can be done?

In the short term, we must support the most vulnerable with measures such as those set out in Bill C‑30. We should also support the hardest-hit sectors to ensure that they get through this imbalance. I am thinking of our farmers, for example. In the longer term, we must help make our economies more resilient. With oil and gas prices rising, we must support the development of the green economy.

Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the type of imbalance we are currently experiencing. Keynes proposed effective tools to deal with crises in demand, but not crises in supply.

In light of this imbalance caused by multiple factors, how long will inflation last? It is difficult to say. The central bank has chosen to get out the heavy artillery to fight inflation. It wants to clamp down on inflation expectations. Here is its reasoning. Once expectations of higher inflation become entrenched in the economy, everyone tries to raise their prices to compensate. That creates a snowball effect. In other words, inflation expectations cause inflation.

It is easy to fall into this vicious cycle. The Bank of Canada, like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Fed, wants to minimize that risk, even if it means seriously slowing the economy or even helping trigger a recession. Central banks believe that it will then be easier to stimulate the economy to support growth as needed. They are still traumatized by the inflationary episodes of the 1970s and 1980s.

Inflation is still high, but there are signs it is stabilizing. We appear to be emerging from this period of overall imbalance, at least in some sectors, but not because of monetary policy, which is slow to bring about change.

Is the central bank's policy too aggressive? Possibly.

Some economists suggest waiting a little longer to see how the economy will respond to this interest rate hike. Nobody can say for sure where lies the sweet spot between fighting inflation and avoiding recession. The Bank of Canada, again inspired by the Fed, apparently prefers to fight inflation. Over the next few months, we will see if it made the right choice. Meanwhile, economic conditions remain uncertain.

This is a difficult situation for many people, as I said. It is important to adopt policies aimed at those who are struggling the most and to implement them in the context of the Bank of Canada's monetary policy. We also need to promote structural measures, including supports for social housing and measures to address the labour shortage. On that point, I do not understand why the government still has not introduced any tax breaks to lure retirees back to work.

I want to talk briefly about the situation in developing countries. It is downright catastrophic, and Canada and other rich countries must do a better job of supporting them. On top of food shortages, developing countries face high levels of public debt, as international institutions encouraged them to take on debt during the pandemic. Most of their imports and loans are in U.S. dollars. However, in the context of global uncertainty, the value of the greenback has soared, serving as a hedge and reducing the purchasing power of these countries. The energy crisis is also taking a toll. Lastly, China is drawing back from doing business with developing countries due to its own economic difficulties.

That is why wealthy countries need to come together quickly to support these countries in order to avoid a cascading series of crises in these emerging economies. Everyone will be affected. We have to prevent that from happening.

Let us also invest in the green transition. We are facing a serious crisis, and we need to act urgently.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech. I am fortunate to serve with him on the Standing Committee on Finance.

The government has announced three measures to fight inflation: the payment of GST refunds under Bill C-30, and dental benefits and rental assistance under Bill C-31.

My colleague was with me for the briefing on Bill C-30, and it went well. However, members of the House were not briefed on Bill C-31 until well after journalists were.

I would like to my colleague to share his thoughts on that. Does he think that the government lacks respect for the members of the House?

Again with regard to Bill C-31, does my colleague agree that we should ask the government to split the bill into two separate ones, since dental benefits and rental assistance are two very different types of measures?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, If we take a look at Bill C-31, we see the benefits that the member highlights for people who are renting, but the real nugget in that bill, from my perspective, is the dental program, which is going to assist children in being able to get dental work that might not take place otherwise. At the same time, we can ensure that people who need that dental work are being subsidized as much as possible, although it may not be 100%, as there are some limits to it.

That was just this morning. This afternoon we are bring forward another bill, which looks at doubling the tax credit, and that is going to be helping Canadians. I think what we are seeing as we come back into this session is a government agenda that is dealing with a very serious—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

As I said to his colleague, the minister, we are in favour of increasing the GST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. That is actually something we have been calling for, and we think it should have been done long ago to help the less fortunate fight inflation.

The measures in Bill C‑30 were proposed at the same time as those in Bill C‑31. I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

Members of Parliament were invited to a technical briefing on Bill C‑31, but it happened long after the one for journalists. Does he think it is right to put the media ahead of parliamentarians, the people who pass bills?

Bill C‑31 includes a $500 rental subsidy for 1.8 million people. That adds up to $900 million, yet they are calling it $1.2 billion. What is up with the extra $300 million? Is it for management fees? Is it for WE Charity? Can he explain that disconnect?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. Bill C‑30 talks about increasing the GST rebate. That is a good measure that could have been brought in sooner.

This measure was announced at the same time as the measures in Bill C‑31 concerning a dental plan and rent assistance. However, if we look closely at the bill, the rent assistance is provided through the Canada housing benefit. This benefit does not exist in Quebec because it already had a program in place, and so the right to opt out with full compensation. The bill does not mention that right, however. There is no mention of harmonization. The same goes for the dental plan. The plan proposed in the bill would apply to children 11 and under. Quebec's program applies to children 10 and under. Again, there is no plan for harmonization.

Will the government commit to revising Bill C‑31 to account for the programs that already exist in Quebec? Is the government simply ignoring Quebec yet again?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I too always look forward to the Thursday question.

Let me first take the opportunity to thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for his service in the role as opposition House leader. It was a pleasure to work with him.

I will also welcome the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to his new role as opposition House leader. We have had some fruitful conversations. I look forward to more of them.

First, of course, I reject the characterization that supporting Canadians in their retirement while making sure EI is there for them in case they lose their jobs is a tax increase. We have a fundamental difference with regard to making sure we invest in Canadians, and we will see that play out in legislation.

If I could, because the question was asked of me, I am excited to say that this afternoon we are going to start second reading debate of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act.

Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate on Bill C-31, which provides for the establishment of dental benefits for children under the age of 12 years old and a one-time rental housing benefit. Then we are going to switch back to Bill C-30 following question period. If further debate is needed, we will continue will Bill C-31 on Monday.

On Wednesday, we will return to second reading of Bill C-29 concerning the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization.

Finally, I would like to inform hon. colleagues that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be opposition days.