Bill C-31

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2 (Targeted Support for Households)

An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing

Part 1 enacts the Dental Benefit Act , which provides for the establishment of an application-based interim dental benefit. The benefit provides interim direct financial support for parents for dental care services received by their children under 12 years of age in the period starting in October 2022 and ending in June 2024.
Part 2 enacts the Rental Housing Benefit Act , which provides for the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit.
Finally, Part 3 makes related amendments to the Income Tax Act , the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 .

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion.

I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House to open this important debate on Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

These days everyone is feeling the effects of the increased cost of living. This situation is particularly difficult for families. We know that all parents want what is best for their children.

However, with inflation the way it is, oral health care may be out of reach for the more than one-third of Canadians who do not have dental insurance and their children.

That is why, this week, we introduced a bill that proposes a Canadian dental benefit to help families who are having difficulty paying for dental care for their children. The introduction of this benefit is the first step toward a comprehensive, long-term national dental care program.

Investing in oral health is about more than just avoiding cavities. It is essential to overall health. By making routine dental care more accessible to Canadian families, we can prevent children's minor oral health problems from becoming major issues that are more costly, painful and difficult to address. For example, poor oral health is linked to major chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

Poor oral health clearly places a heavy burden on children, parents and the health care system across the country. The direct and indirect costs affect us all, and we can all benefit from the improvements that proper oral health care can bring to the overall health of the Canadian population.

The proposed Canada dental benefit is a first important step toward that goal. The proposed benefit would start by helping children who are more in need, because when it comes to poor oral health, kids have the most to lose. Many oral diseases can begin in the preschool years, and tooth decay is the most common chronic disease in Canada for children. That is also true around the world.

In Canada, the treatment of dental problems is the leading cause of day surgery under general anaesthesia for children under the age of five. Once again, these dental problems are not shared equally among all kids. Research shows that dental diseases tend to be found mostly among children from lower-income families, indigenous children, new immigrants and children living with disabilities or who have special health care needs. The good news is that with the right amount of care, these oral health issues and the longer-term health problems they create are preventable.

Here is how the Canada dental benefit would work. Beginning in late 2022, parents whose adjusted family net income is under $90,000 and who do not have access to private dental insurance can claim the Canada dental benefit for their eligible children under 12.

The Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, will administer the benefit. Parents will be able to apply through the CRA's My Account portal or their contact centre. If eligible, they will receive an initial payment that they can use to see a dentist with their child.

We want to eliminate as many obstacles to accessing dental care as possible by making sure that families do not have to cover dental expenses they cannot afford.

The Canada dental benefit will provide up to $650 per year per child under 12. It will be available to eligible families and children and will not be taxed.

We realize that it is essential for Canadians with urgent dental care needs to get funding quickly and easily. That is why the benefit will be offered to claimants before the dental care is provided. That money can be used to cover oral health services offered by any independent, regulated oral health care provider in Canada.

In the event a person has paid for care before applying for the benefit, they can apply for the benefit retroactively, as long as the care was received during the eligibility period and was not reimbursed by another program.

If this bill is passed, Health Canada and the CRA will work closely together to ensure that Canadians receive their benefits as quickly as possible.

The CRA has the necessary resources and experience to offer this program thanks to its vast, secure infrastructure and its long-standing experience in delivering services to Canadians. The CRA will verify compliance before and after the payment to protect itself against fraud and ensure that the program is being used as intended.

If the bill is passed, Health Canada will act quickly to ensure that Canadian families who qualify for the Canada dental benefit are well informed about how to apply for it.

In collaboration with the CRA, Health Canada will launch a national public education campaign to inform qualifying families about the program and will oversee the implementation of the benefit.

As I mentioned, the proposed Canada dental benefit is an interim benefit. This measure would provide immediate financial support to low- and middle-income Canadian families, allowing them to begin addressing their eligible children’s dental care needs sooner rather than later. While this interim program is in place, the Government of Canada will take the necessary steps to build a comprehensive, longer-term dental care program. That includes engaging with key stakeholders, including the provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, dental associations and industry to help inform our approach to implementing a long-term Canadian dental care program.

This past summer, for example, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and I launched a request for information with industry representatives, and Health Canada reached out to provinces and territories to better understand what is needed to successfully implement a long-term Canadian dental care program. What we learned through that process will help inform our approach as we work toward a permanent program.

I am pleased with the progress our government continues to make on this front as we develop and take necessary steps to put in place a robust, sustainable long-term dental care program for Canadians. I look forward to providing more details on that front in the coming months.

If passed, this bill will help hundreds of thousands of Canadian children who do not currently have access to dental care because of the cost of that care. Bill C-31 proposes an interim benefit, because children, whose teeth are still developing, are a priority for our government and for anyone who cares about oral health.

That being said, in closing, I would like to take a moment to talk about timelines. In budget 2022, our government committed to helping our youngest Canadians access dental care by the end of the year. Our goal is to ensure that children under 12 can access the Canada dental benefit by the end of 2022. I therefore urge all hon. members of the House to support this bill, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, without delay.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, a question immediately came to mind when I was listening to the speech by the health minister, the same minister who refused to have any discussions with the provinces about health costs and what to do about health care.

Did the minister consult the province of Quebec, the government of Quebec and, above all, the health minister of Quebec about establishing its dental care program for children?

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

Madam Speaker, before answering definitely yes to the last question, I would like to correct the introduction a little. The introduction to the question suggests that we have not worked together over the past few months. I suggest that my hon. colleague speak to his counterpart, Quebec's health minister—even though he may be a little busy right now—and check with him about all the exchanges we have had over the past year, which led to positive health outcomes, especially in the fight against COVID-19. Those outcomes have been significant for the country and certainly for all Quebeckers.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would love to know whether the Minister of Health realizes that Quebec already covers dental care for kids under the age of nine.

Did he factor that into his program? How does he plan to compensate Quebeckers whose taxes will be paying for benefits that are allocated elsewhere in Canada? Quebeckers already pay for such a program and our health care system is in need of funding.

This all boils down to one question: When will the minister look at increasing health transfers and letting Quebec do its job?

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

Madam Speaker, there is good news for children in Quebec.

Quebec's system partially covers dental care for children up to the age of nine and we are proud of that. The good news is that the Canadian government is going to expand that coverage to older children and to more types of care.

Preventive health care is essential in Quebec and all across the country. We want the sick to be properly looked after, and we also want to prevent people from getting sick. The additional coverage that our government is providing through the Canada dental benefit will give hundreds of thousands of kids under the age of 12 in Quebec access to better preventive dental care.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for this bill. I am glad the NDP was able to force the government to take action to ensure that dental coverage would be provided to Canadians, starting first with coverage for children under 12 and subsequently for seniors and people with disabilities, and so on.

With that being said, it is, of course, important to make sure that indigenous children who get dental services elsewhere would also have access at least the equivalent level of service under this bill.

Could the minister please confirm if that would be the case?

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

Madam Speaker, there are two different things. First, NIHB, as the member knows, covers most dental care services, and other health services, for indigenous peoples. We have been investing more resources into that program, and we will be investing more resources over time.

Second, this is a key part of the House agenda over the next few days. We really hope that all parties will support this piece of legislation, which is going to be key in supporting issues around the cost of living for so many Canadian families and, certainly, the health care and dental health care needs of so many children in our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments on this, but my question remains. The government cannot even afford the Canada mental health transfer, which has been promised for a very long time, and it cannot manage the Canadian health care system now, so why is it introducing new legislation for something else that it would not be able to manage?

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

Madam Speaker, we all know, and I am sure the member knows this as well, that health and health care are global. It is all part of an entire body. It would be unfortunate to say that we should treat one part of our body or mind and not treat the other parts. They are all connected, and that is why investments in dental care, mental care, long-term care, home care and community care are all important. We are not going to choose which aspects of people we need to invest in.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House about the measures the government is taking to make housing more affordable for Canadians.

Since 2015, our government has made housing a priority. Housing was at the heart of the last budget. Now, however, Canadians are increasingly feeling the effects of the increase in the cost of living. That is why we need to redouble our efforts and work together to develop an ambitious plan.

In 2017, we adopted the national housing strategy, the first of its kind in Canada’s history. This 10-year plan is supported by investments totalling more than $72 billion. The main objective of the national housing strategy is to create more housing for vulnerable Canadians, including seniors, women and children fleeing violence, indigenous people, veterans, people with disabilities, and people experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless.

The strategy has already been very successful. For example, last year in Quebec we announced $100 million to renovate low-cost housing, including 517 units that had been abandoned for years. We are continuing to adjust and broaden the strategy to keep up with the constantly changing situation. We are proposing new investments in a number of programs, as well as the extension and acceleration of financing for existing programs, which are helping the situation.

Although we are working hard to make Canadians’ lives more affordable, we recognize that many of them need immediate additional assistance. This is why we are proposing Bill C-31, which provides a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit, consisting of a single payment of $500 to approximately 1.8 million renters who are struggling to pay their rent. This one-time federal allowance will be available to Canadians with adjusted net incomes of less than $35,000 for families, or $20,000 for individuals, and who pay at least 30% of their income on housing.

In Hochelaga, 70% of the population consists of renters, with over 24% paying more than 30% of their income on rent. This payment will double the commitment we made in the 2022 budget. We will therefore be able to help twice as many Canadians as we initially promised. This one-time payment will be in addition to the Canada housing benefit, which is currently jointly funded and provided by the provinces and territories. The Canada housing benefit, launched in 2020, was developed jointly with the provinces and territories. With joint financing of $4 billion over eight years, it provides direct financial support to those who are struggling to pay rent.

Canadians have told us loud and clear that affordable housing is one of their major concerns, and we agree. The pandemic and its effects on the economy brought to light and exacerbated the precarious housing conditions in which many people live. One of the main causes of unaffordable housing in Canada is insufficient supply. Housing supply is not keeping up with demand. This problem was aggravated by the pandemic and, as we know, goes well beyond the borders of major cities, affecting small towns and rural communities as well. Creating more housing units will increase affordability for all Canadians. It is urgent that we build additional affordable housing units, especially for those experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless.

That is why the rapid housing initiative will be extended for a third time. Announced in the 2022 budget, the third round of the rapid housing initiative includes $1.5 billion over two years, starting in 2022-23, to create at least 4,500 new affordable housing units to meet urgent needs across the country. Thanks to the excellent participation of our municipal partners and others, the first two rounds of the program exceeded all expectations. Overall, the third round of the rapid housing initiative will fund the construction of 14,500 housing units for the most vulnerable Canadians.

It is also important to mention that the national housing co-investment fund, which brings together numerous partners to build affordable community housing for the most vulnerable Canadians, will receive $13.2 billion in funding. It is one of the main pillars of the strategy and the most important program of its kind in Canada's history.

The national housing co-investment fund addresses supply challenges in two significant ways. It helps to renovate aging affordable housing units in poor condition and to build housing units near public transit, workplaces, schools and other services families depend on. To date, the program has received more than $5.8 billion in loans and contributions. This funding will make it possible to provide stable and safe affordable housing to more than 117,000 Canadian households.

Federal programs like the national housing co-investment fund are important, but we are aware that we need to work in collaboration with others, including the provinces and territories, municipalities, and private and non-profit organizations in order to get results. That is why we want to support our municipal partners in their efforts to increase housing supply. We will be launching a fund to accelerate the construction of housing units. At the municipal level, there are often obstacles and delays at the project development stage. This fund will allow Canadian cities to act more quickly. We expect this initiative to increase the annual supply of housing units in the largest Canadian cities, with a target of 100,000 new units by 2025.

We are making significant progress in implementing our national housing strategy, but there is still much work to do and many obstacles to overcome. Our partners at every level of government and in every sector are committed to working with us to find solutions to improve Canadians' lives.

In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to work together to address the pressing need for housing. Above all, I urge them to immediately support the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit so that we can send out the $500 payment that so many Canadian renters need as soon as possible. I hope that 1.8 million Canadians will have access to these funds.

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

Madam Speaker, I really believe we need an answer on this side of the House to understand the atrocious management that we have seen, the heavy hearts we have that the Canada mental health transfer has not been realized. Now we see another government program.

How does the government propose to manage things when we know clearly from its track record that it cannot really, as my dad would say, manage a marble game?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. This topic is personal for me, since I myself live with young adults, one of whom is experiencing serious mental health issues.

I think that, as a government, we have done what needed to be done. We signed agreements with the provinces that included the issue of mental health in health transfers. We will continue to work with the provinces to support Canadians across the country with their physical and mental health needs, and especially their housing needs.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the aisle is from the riding of Hochelaga, which is known for having a large number of low-income families.

What does she have to say to all of the low-income families whose taxes will be used to send payments to families with children between the ages of 0 and 9 in the other provinces, while their own situation remains the same?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I can say is that more than 15,000 families in Hochelaga are receiving the Canada child benefit, which was not the case four years ago. We are talking about families receiving $600, $700, $800, $900 or $1,000 a month to help meet all their needs. For the most vulnerable families in Hochelaga, this makes a big difference on their paycheque at the end of the month.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the speech made by my colleague from Hochelaga, and I noticed that three important words were missing from her speech: New Democratic Party.

Prior to the election, the Liberals had absolutely no interest in funding dental care for the poor and middle class. We forced the Liberals to provide that coverage. They did not want to offer the Canada housing benefit to the most disadvantaged, who are struggling to pay rent. We forced their hand. They did not want to increase the GST credit. The NDP forced the Liberals to do it.

Now they need to go a step further and tax the richest billionaires and big corporations that are taking advantage of inflation to line their pockets.

They might as well continue using our ideas.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also my riding neighbour, for his question.

I prefer to use the word “collaborate”. To me, the spirit of collaboration is working with all MPs in the House to improve people's quality of life. My colleague and I agree on that. I will continue to collaborate with every member of Parliament who is willing to work with all Canadians to improve their quality of life.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at the legislation, it is important to note that what we are doing is helping society deal with a very serious problem. Teeth decay and surgeries as a direct result of children not having a dental plan are having a profound impact on other aspects of quality of life and health care costs.

I wonder if the member could provide her comments in regard to the benefits of helping our children at this time.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Here is a brief response. We need to do everything we can to lower the cost of living for people across the country. All members of Parliament should vote in favour of every bill and every program we introduce to improve people's quality of life and help them with housing, health care and mental health. That is what we want to achieve by introducing this bill.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, in my 18 years in politics, I have never seen Canadians suffer as much as they are suffering now. I just criss-crossed the country and met a lot of people. In fact, 93,000 people registered for my events. I make a point of listening to all their stories, and I never leave the room until I have spoken to everyone who wants to meet me. I heard some heartbreaking stories.

We are talking about young people, 35-year-olds, who have done everything they were supposed to do. They earned a degree and they are working hard, yet they are still living in their parents' basement or in a small, 400-square-foot apartment because the price of housing has doubled since this Prime Minister took office. Our housing bubble is the second largest in the world. Yesterday we learned that the percentage of Canadians who own their own home is at its lowest level in over 30 years.

When the Prime Minister took office, Canadians were paying 32% of their income on average to maintain a mid-size house. Now, the average family has to pay 50% of their income just to keep their house. This increase is due to higher costs, but also to an increase in interest rates, which this government had promised Canadians would not happen for a long time. It told Canadians not to worry, to go ahead and take out big loans, since interest rates would remain low for a long time, and there would never be any negative consequences. Now we are seeing interest rates rises 300 basis points, or 3% in simple terms.

This phenomenon is not only affecting the housing sector, it is also affecting the price of food. I will take this opportunity to read out some headlines, because even the media is starting to notice a problem. “Rents are so high in Toronto that students are living in homeless shelters.” “Inflation: Child hunger a major concern in Canada amid skyrocketing food prices.” “GTA food banks say they're facing the highest demand in their history.” “Nearly 6 million people in Canada experienced food insecurity in 2021, U of T study says.” People can no longer pay for food. Some single mothers are even watering down their children's milk because they cannot afford food.

As for gas prices, I met a young man who works in the mines in northern Ontario, and he told me that he could not go see his dying parents in Thunder Bay because diesel was over $2 a litre. He was not able to say goodbye to his own parents.

What is the Prime Minister doing to respond to this crisis? First, he is trying to divide people by attacking them because he thinks that if Canadians are afraid of one another, then they will forget that they cannot pay their bills. The Prime Minister is keeping in place vaccine mandates that every other country has lifted. He is still insisting on the use of the ArriveCAN app, which really does not work. He is trying to divert people's attention away from the cost of living by dividing Canadians and creating problems and division.

The next part of his plan involves increasing income taxes and taxes on gas, heating and food. The first thing the official opposition has called for since I became leader is for the government to do away with the tax hikes so that Canadians can keep more of their paycheques in their pockets and so that energy, gas, heating and other costs become more affordable.

That is our role, here in Parliament, to turn pain into hope. Canadians need hope. The comment I heard most from the people who attended my events was “Thank you for giving us hope”. For the first time, people believe that things can improve, and they will. We can change things.

The first thing we need to do is axe all the tax hikes, but we also need to control spending. Today's inflation is the result of a spendthrift government. The government's spending is increasing the cost of living. The $500-billion inflationary deficit increased the cost of what we buy and the interest that we pay. Inflationary taxes are increasing costs related to our businesses and our workers who provide products and services. The more the government spends, the more things cost. That is “Justinflation”.

We can reverse this trend by introducing legislation to limit government spending. This will subject politicians to the same economic rules that families have to follow. When a family increases spending in one column of their budget, they have to cut spending elsewhere. They have to find a dollar to spend a dollar. The same principle should apply to governments. During the Clinton years, the United States passed a law that helped Americans balance their budget and pay down $400 billion in debt. It was, at the time, the largest debt repayment in the United States. As soon as the law was struck down, Americans were plunged back into a deficit. This is proof that we need to put legal limits on politicians' spending and that politicians should have to follow the same spending rules as single mothers and small business owners.

Furthermore, instead of just printing more money, we need to produce more of the things that money buys, produce affordable food, energy and natural resources here in Canada, and we need to build more houses. We need to remove the barriers that the Prime Minister has put in place.

Let us start with food. The Prime Minister increased farmers' taxes. That increases the cost of fertilizer and of the energy needed to produce food. Now he wants to limit the use of fertilizer. That will require farming more land to produce the same quantity of food. Tractors and other equipment will have to cover a larger area, burning more diesel and other fuels. More food will have to be imported. Bringing this food from other countries to Canada will again require using more energy.

Did we not learn during the COVID-19 crisis that it is irresponsible to rely on other countries for what we need?

We should be able to grow our own food here, in Canada. Our farmers are the best in the world. We should remove the barriers that the government has put in place. We will cancel these taxes on farmers, scrap the government's plans to reduce the use of fertilizer and eliminate the paperwork that is so expensive for our farmers.

Second, we will provide incentives to our municipalities to cut their red tape. At present, Canada has the lowest housing units per capita in the G7, even though we have the largest land area. That is ridiculous. That is why housing prices in Canada are the second highest in the world relative to household income. With regard to home ownership, Vancouver is the third most expensive market in the world, and Toronto is the sixth. A Conservative government will tie the dollar amount for infrastructure in big cities where housing prices are too high to the number of houses built.

This will encourage them to cut red tape and reduce the cost of building permits so that more housing can be built. Every time a federal government funds a public transit station, we will make sure there is intensive densification in the surrounding areas so that young people can live in homes and apartments next to public transit.

Third, we will sell 15% of the 37,000 federal buildings so that they can be converted into housing and create millions of homes that our young people could buy in order to start a family.

Instead of importing foreign energy, we will get rid of laws like the ones arising from Bill C‑69 and others to allow energy to be produced here in Canada. This will create jobs and make the cost of energy more affordable. It will increase Canadians' purchasing power by raising the value of our dollar. When our energy sector is strong, our dollar goes up. The value of the dollar is tied to our purchasing power. When the dollar is low, it costs more to buy anything on international markets. Let us strengthen our dollar, produce our own energy and end oil imports.

By the way, where are the Liberal and NDP environmentalists to protest the foreign oil we are importing? Why are we funding dictators? We should be funding Canadians' paycheques here at home.

Finally, we want to give Canadians back control of their lives, in the freest country in the world, where the dollar keeps its value so that Canadians can have the life they work so hard to build. We should be a country that rewards hard work, a country where people can keep more of their money. We need to reform the tax system so that hard-working Canadians who contribute to the economy can keep their hard-earned money and provide better for their families. We should be a country that encourages and supports those who work hard, take risks and help build our country.

It is good to be back in the House, but would it not be nice if our young people could have a home? That is what we should be working towards. Unfortunately, yesterday we learned that the rates of home ownership are at their lowest levels in a generation. House prices have doubled under this Prime Minister. In fact, when this Prime Minister took office, the average family could afford their monthly housing costs with 32% of their paycheque. That has rocketed up to almost 50%. Vancouver is the third-most overpriced housing market on planet Earth. Toronto is the sixth. We have the second-worst housing bubble on planet Earth. No wonder nine in 10 young Canadians say that they cannot even dream of affording a house.

Now, from housing to food, we see the headlines. Even the media has noticed: “Rents are so high in Toronto that students are living in homeless shelters”; “Child hunger a major concern in Canada amid skyrocketing food prices”; “GTA food banks say they're facing the highest demand in their history”; and “Nearly 6 million people in Canada experienced food insecurity in 2021, U of T study says”.

Then there is energy. I met a young man in northern Ontario who said that he could not afford to put the diesel in his car to go and see his dying relatives one last time, who are hundreds of miles away in Thunder Bay. I met a working man, an energy worker ironically, in St. John's, Newfoundland, who said that the rising cost of gas meant he could not afford to replace his boots so he was taping them up with duct tape.

Canadians are suffering, and why is this happening? The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. Half a trillion dollars of inflationary deficits means more dollars chasing fewer goods, leading to higher prices, bidding up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes drive up the cost of businesses and workers to make our goods. The more Liberals spend, the more things cost. It is just inflation, and Canadians are paying the price for it.

What has been the Prime Minister's response? His first response was to attack the people who were suffering, to call them horrible and disparaging names, to divide and distract. His strategy is simple. He thinks if people are afraid of their neighbours, they will forget that they cannot pay their bills, so he keeps in place divisive and unscientific vaccine mandates to shut truckers out of their ability to transport goods across the border and soldiers, who have served our country bravely and loyally, out of their jobs. He does this all to stigmatize and attack so a single mother who is putting water in her kid's milk might forget, he hopes, how badly she is suffering under his watch because she will be afraid of her fellow citizens. It is time to replace fear with freedom. It is time for us all to unite.

The Prime Minister's second approach has been ever predictable. He wants to raise taxes with a new tax hike on paycheques that will take effect on January 1, meaning that Canadians will take home less of what they earn. Small businesses will have to pay a higher cost for every single person they keep on the payroll, forcing many to make the painful choice of laying people off. A few months later, on April 1, April Fool's Day, he will continue to carry out his plan to triple the carbon tax. He wants to increase gas taxes, home heating taxes and, indirectly, food taxes because, of course, food requires energy. This is going to make things worse. The Conservatives have made the demand that the government must cancel all its tax increases on our workers and our seniors so that their paycheques go further and their energy becomes affordable.

We in this House have a duty to transform the hurt into hope. That is what Conservatives will do, because things can get better. There is nothing wrong with Canada, with our country, that cannot be cured by what is right with this country. We have the answers that will counter this inflation and reinforce the purchasing power of Canadians.

We will call for a cap on taxes so that Canadians pay no more to the government and can keep more for themselves. We will call for the government to cap its own spending, and it can do this by simply following the same rules that everyday families follow. If a family decides it wants to build a porch in front of their house, they cancel their vacation or, better yet, they go out and find a deal on lumber and look for a way to keep their vacation costs down so that they can do both but for the same budget. This is how small businesses function as well, but not government.

The great Thomas Sowell said that the number one law of economics is scarcity, that people always want more than there is to have and that the number one rule of politics is to ignore the number one rule of economics, because politicians are the only creatures in the universe who do not have to live with scarcity. The birds in the trees, the fish in the seas, all must make maximum use of limited resources, but the politician just passes the cost on to someone else in higher inflation, debt and taxes. A “pay-as-you-go” law would force politicians to make the same either-or trade-offs that everyday Canadians make in their lives.

The principle is very simple. If the government brings in a new dollar of spending, it should find a dollar of savings to pay for it. All of the existing spending that is in the budget goes ahead into the future, but when the government steps into this House to introduce a new measure, it should accompany it with savings to pay for it. The government did this in the United States during the 1990s and that allowed the American government to balance its budget, pay off $400 billion of debt, have booming job growth, record-low unemployment and a massive increase in prosperity, but as soon as it let the law lapse, it went right back into deficit, proving that politicians need the same legal limits on their spending that families follow every single day. Our families have been pinching their pennies long enough. It is time for government to pinch its pennies, too.

Instead of just creating more cash, why not create more of what cash buys? Why do we not grow more food, build more house and produce more Canadian resources right here in our country instead?

Let us start with houses. As I have said, we have the fewest houses per capita of any country in the entire G7, even though we have the most land on which to build. Why? Local government gatekeepers stand in the way.

In Vancouver, the cost of government gatekeepers, that is permitting, delays, consultants and taxes, is $600,000 for one unit of housing. It is about $350,000 in Toronto. This prevents people from owning a home.

I propose is this. The government should link the number of dollars big overpriced cities get for infrastructure to the number of houses that actually get built, so we have an incentive for them to remove the gatekeepers, lower the costs and increase the speed of building permits so we can get more houses.

Let us require every federally funded transit station be pre-approved for high-density housing around it, so our young people do not even need to own a car. They can live right next to transit. Let us sell off 15% of the underutilized and overpriced 37,000 federal buildings, so we can convert that into housing. Let us create millions of new homes, so our newcomers, immigrants, young people and working-class people can re-establish the dream of home ownership.

Let us put an end to importing overseas oil into this country. Where are the protesters? Where are the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal protesters standing in Saint John, New Brunswick to greet all those big tankers coming from overseas? They say that they are against oil, but they have no problem if that oil comes from foreign dictatorships. There are 130,000 barrels of overseas oil every single day arriving at our shores and taking our money back to their countries at the same time.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister violates his own sanctions against Putin by sending back a turbine so the Russians can continue to pump gas into Germany, so the Germans can fund the Russian war against Ukraine. It is incredible. Those members are against pipelines in Canada, but in favour of maintaining the turbines for Russian pipelines that fund foreign wars.

Meanwhile, we have 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that could be used to free Europe from its dependency on Putin, meanwhile bringing back paycheques to this country. We have the ability to produce it cleaner than anywhere else on planet earth. In fact, the shortest shipping distances to both Asia and Europe from North America are right here in Canada.

What else do we have in Canada that allows us to liquify natural gas so it fits on a ship? Cold weather, which is our most abundant natural resource. That actually lowers the cost of liquefying natural gas by 25%. With Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia hydro, we can do it emissions-free. Why do we not ship our clean Canadian natural gas to Asia to shut down coal-fired plants there and ship it to Europe to break European dependence on Putin? Let us turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for Canadians.

Let us make work pay again in our country. Let us stop punishing people for the crime of getting up early in the morning and putting in a hard day's work. According to a Finance Canada document, if a single mother with three kids who earns $55,000 a year goes out and earns another dollar, she loses 80¢ of that dollar to government clawbacks and taxes. If she makes $25 an hour, she takes home $5 of that. No one should work for $5 an hour. That is below minimum wage, and yet our tax and benefits system punishes her for trying to work a little harder so maybe her kids can go to camp in the summer or maybe they can join the little league team.

We should reward hard work in our country. We should set out to reform our benefit and tax systems, so that every time someone works harder, takes another shift, earns a bonus and gets up a little earlier they keep more of what they earn.

My parents raised me to believe that it did not matter where I came from; it mattered where I was going. It did not matter who I knew, but what I could do. That is the country I want my kids to inherit. I want this to be a country again where it does not matter where people start off. If they work hard, if they take risks, if they study, if they learn, if they build and if they contribute, they can achieve anything they want. Right now, people do not feel that way, but hope is on the way.

We are going to bring change to our country. We are going to put change back in your pocket and we are going to make this the freest country on earth.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments are coming. I would ask members to please tone it down so we can allow for those.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to note that in the speech we just heard the member spoke about putting “change in your pocket”. I wonder if that is appropriate in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

This becomes a point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his recent victory.

What we are fully aware of, and I think Canadians are quite aware of it as well, is that during his leadership contest, the member started off by talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a solution for people to invest.

I already hear the heckles coming from across the way because they do not want me to bring this up, but I have a sincere question for the Leader of the Opposition.

He started to change his position on it and pretty much stopped talking about it right around the time that cryptocurrencies took an absolute dive and anybody who was investing would have seen their investments absolutely devastated. Therefore, I have a genuine question for the Leader of the Opposition.

Has he had an opportunity to reflect on that position and perhaps has he evolved his position on that and would he be willing to share that with the House?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the only way for all Canadians to avoid inflation is for the government to stop causing it in the first place. The Canadian dollar is the only national currency and will always be the only national currency of our country. Unfortunately, the government is devaluing the purchasing power of that currency.

With a half-trillion dollars of inflationary deficits, it has driven inflation to its highest levels in 40 years. It has doubled housing prices, which has reduced the purchasing power of the dollar in terms of real estate by half, That is what we have to fix. We need to reinforce the power of the Canadian dollar by cancelling the inflationary deficits and inflationary taxes that have caused this inflation crisis in the first place.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the new leader of the Conservative Party on his election. I just want to remind him, however, that the leadership race is over and that we are debating Bill C‑31.

This bill is yet another federal encroachment on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, which brings me to the subject of health transfers.

My colleague's speech was very long indeed, but it did not include a single word about health transfers. I have been here for three years, and every time I ask Conservative members a question about health transfers, I get the same meaningless answer. They say they are going to sit down with the premiers and then make a decision. The problem is that the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have already sat down together and have already figured out that they need health transfers to go up to 35%.

Now that the Conservative Party has a new leader, will it finally commit to giving Quebec and the provinces the 35% health transfer increase they want? Is the party ready to provide a meaningful answer? Does it have a different answer now?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is right about the fact that the Liberals are creating new programs when they cannot even manage the existing ones. Our health care system is already in crisis, and the federal government has done nothing to fix it. The government is doing nothing to protect our borders from people crossing illegally and from gun smugglers. This government cannot even issue passports.

Why should we believe that this government can manage the housing crisis and dental benefits? A government that cannot assume its existing responsibilities should not be taking on new ones.

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

Madam Speaker, I too offer my congratulations to the Conservatives' new leader. I am a little perplexed, though, because in his 20-minute speech, we did not hear a single mention of dental care, one of the major components of the legislation we are debating this morning.

I have heard from constituents, seniors, who cannot chew their food; from parents who cannot afford to get their kids the basic dental care they need; and from people who work in dental offices, who see everyday Canadians who cannot afford the procedures they need.

A year ago, the Conservatives voted against our motion to create a national dental care plan. I am wondering if the leader of the official opposition intends to continue that legacy.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite right to say that Canadians are suffering under the policies that he is supporting. He is a part of that costly coalition.

Everything that is happening in Canada is the paradise for which the NDP has been dreaming of all these years. They are now realizing all of the policies they always wanted. Basically, we have an NDP prime minister. What has that given us? Forty year highs in inflation, double the housing prices, record-low home ownership rates, people who, like the member said, cannot afford the basics of life. That is the consequence of that costly coalition of bigger government and smaller citizens whereby Canadians are carrying this heavy load.

Here is the question. Why would we trust the government to create new programs when it cannot run the programs it already has? It cannot protect our borders. It cannot keep out the guns. It cannot stop the crime even though the Criminal Code is a federal responsibility. It cannot even deliver a passport. How can we expect it to run our lives?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my congratulations as well to the leader of the official opposition.

I understand that he is concerned with the rising cost of housing, particularly for young folks. On that we can agree. However, in his speech, he skipped right over institutional investors, pension funds and real estate investment trusts that are treating the housing market like stocks, making huge profits on the backs of young people and other low-income folks for whom he says he wants to stand up.

Does he agree that homes should be places where people live and not treated as commodities in which that folks trade? Is he not also concerned that there is nothing in the bill to address that, like removing preferential tax treatment for real estate investment trusts?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that institutional investors have been able to outbid everyday working-class Canadians for housing. Why? Because the government flooded the financial system with $400 billion of newly created cash. When it pumped that cash into the financial system, it went into mortgage lending. Who is preferred to borrow that money? Wealthy, well-connected institutional investors. They got their hands on that money and they used it to bid up housing prices out of the reach of the working class, meaning that young people, who not long ago would have been able to afford a home, are now permanent renters.

We need to change this system. We need to stop the money printing, ensure that we have a financial and monetary system based on hard, sound money.

Finally, we need to incentivize local government gatekeepers to get out of the way, deliver faster and more affordable building permits, so we can get houses built for our youth.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the official leader of our opposition for not only winning our Conservative leadership race recently, but also for laying out a clear vision as to how we can actually fix all of the problems created by the Liberal government.

It seems like we have seen this movie before. I look back to when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada and we saw inflation go out of control, because of out-of-control government spending and sky-high interest rates. I bought my first chunk of farm land back in 1984 and I paid 21.5% interest on my mortgage. That was because of irresponsible Liberal government programs and increased money being spent, which affected our economy.

Is this a problem again of Liberal times always being tough times? Does the official leader of the opposition think that this is again, like father, like son?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are like the Bourbon dynasty: They learn nothing and forget nothing. They are right back to the same policies.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran monstrous money-printing deficits. Of course, that led to 12% inflation, 12% unemployment and then ultimately 19% or 20% interest rates. If we combine unemployment and inflation, we get the misery index. It reached a record-smashing 24% under the first Trudeau, which delivered the highest suicide rates in Canadian history in 1983.

My earliest memories are of that time, and my parents suffered because, while they were school teachers and did not lose their jobs, they got hit with those interest rate hikes just like everyone else and lost their rental properties. We ended up having to move to a smaller place because of that. We were among the lucky since we were able to get into a home.

We are following the same policies. We have 40-year highs of inflation. Inflation is higher than at any time since the last Trudeau. If we do the same things, we get the same results.

The good news is that after Canada was liberated from Pierre Elliot Trudeau, we spent a lot of years doing the exact opposite: shrinking the size of government, reforming our taxes, opening up our economy and standing up for working-class people. That is exactly what we are going to do again, and we are going to get even better results next time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have a question of privilege from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to share my speaking time with my admirable colleague, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is agreed.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents in the beautiful riding of Mirabel for putting their trust in me one year ago today. Every day, I am reminded what an honour it is to represent them.

I have been thinking about my constituents. I was thinking about them yesterday. I was thinking about them this morning. I was thinking that last year, the people of Mirabel, along with all Quebeckers and Canadians, voted in a minority government. They voted in a government that was meant to work with the other opposition parties, discuss with them and be constructive. That is what the people of Mirabel wanted. That is what Quebeckers wanted. That is what Canadians wanted.

A minority government is not necessarily a weak government. It can be a government that is strong because it seeks consensus, engages in dialogue, listens and communicates with the provinces and Quebec. A minority government can be a strong government if it goes about things the right way. However, what the current Liberal government decided to do is an admission of weakness. It has rejected the mandate it was given. Rather than doing the work that Canadians and Quebeckers asked it to do, this government decided to give in to the NDP's laundry list of demands to circumvent democracy.

There is a reason we are presented with flawed, convoluted, last-minute bills like Bill C-31. Drafting good bills, especially budgetary and financial bills, takes time, thought, preparation and consensus. To top it all off, the bill before us today deals with health care.

It is important to note that dental health is part of overall health. What is more, this is a field in which Ottawa does not know what it is doing. It does not have the expertise or the jurisdiction. It is not set up for this.

This summer, the people of Mirabel saw that the federal government was unable to issue passports, so they are not convinced that they want the federal government messing with their teeth. We understand. That is fair. What is worse is that there is no connection—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I will remind the member that he cannot hold up documents during his speech, especially when they have the party logo on them. I am reminding the member as he knows full well that he is not supposed to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I am sorry for having to be told and I will be sure not to do it again.

Bill C-31 has no teeth and has nothing to do with dental health. It does not meet dental needs. It is not insurance, and it is not dental insurance. This bill reflects a total lack of understanding of the existing programs in Quebec and also in other provinces.

I am going to explain what Bill C‑31 really does. All it does is top up the family benefits and the Canada child benefit that already exist. The Bloc Québécois asked for targeted measures to help families with children, low-income families, taxi drivers and people currently affected by rising prices. However, all the government is saying is that it will top up the Canada child benefit for families with an income of less than $90,000 a year to help them deal with the increased cost of living. Now the NDP is telling the government that this bill has no teeth. The government says that those who want the benefit should submit the dentist's bill, even if it is just for $1, $2 or $3 for strawberry-flavored fluoride, for example, and they will be fully reimbursed.

The Minister of Health is an economist, so he should know that there are no assurances in that. He should know that this program may help families, but instead of increasing their benefits, the government wants them to submit their receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency, fill out forms in triplicate and use the My Account portal. We all know how well MyAccount works and how much everybody loves using it. The government wants people to fill out paperwork, and if they do not have the money to pay for care up front, then they need to fill out even more paperwork to get the money up front and eventually receive care. Ordinarily, if the NDP were not here to get in the way of families and these benefits, the government would give the people money and they would go to the dentist or wherever. This bill is a benefits increase disguised as a dental program where families are asked to spend their time filling out paperwork. I congratulate the NDP.

This whole thing is meant to give the NDP members a chance to parade around their ridings, lying through their teeth about having achieved something for dental health. I have news for them: They have been shafted, and on top of that, families will to deal with red tape. This is unacceptable.

It is especially unacceptable because Quebec is getting shafted even more than the NDP on this issue. To qualify for this Canada child benefit top-up, the child's dental care must not be fully covered through private or public insurance. However, since 1974, Quebec has had an extremely progressive policy for children under 10. It covers most of the services that families need. This program could be enhanced, which would be possible if Ottawa would provide health transfers. This program means that Quebeckers who go to the dentist for routine care do not have to pay a cent. They are not eligible for this federal money. What should Quebeckers do, ask for strawberry-flavoured fluoride or an extra filling? Should we ask for additional services and try to spend more at the dentist, just so we can get a benefit that could have been enhanced, by consensus in the House, at the touch of a button? This is all because of the little deal reached between the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals do not want to talk to the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the Greens in order to work the way a Parliament should work.

Not surprisingly, when the Liberals unveiled Bill C‑31, they came off looking kind of foolish. The day they made the announcement, there just happened to be a press conference in Quebec where people in the field, people who had spent more than just a couple of weeks thinking and talking about the issue, people who are very familiar with the issue, asked the Government of Quebec to increase public coverage in Quebec and urge Ottawa to boost health transfers. These people were asked what they thought of the federal government's Bill C‑31, which will not actually cover any additional services and will get families tangled up in red tape, forcing them to take the kids on fun family outings to the Canada Revenue Agency instead of helping them with their homework.

Unions, seniors' advocacy groups and the poor responded quite eloquently to Bill C‑31. I want to read from a document that I have here. The response is so clear that I could not have said it better myself. They said that it is nonsense.

That is what people in the know are saying. For years, they have been asking for services, for real coverage. They are asking to be able to go to the dentist under an existing program and have the services already covered.

We have gotten to this point because the federal government broke its promise to negotiate health transfers with the provinces. Since the start of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has been telling us that there is a pandemic going on, that now is not the time, that it is too soon. The government said that once the pandemic was over, it would negotiate increased health transfers with the provinces, as Quebec and the provinces are calling for. Everyone agrees on increasing health transfers, except the federal government. When it comes to health transfers, the government has no money, but when it comes to things the NDP wants, there is always money available.

The pandemic is over. The temporary EI measures are set to be lifted on Sunday. Some 60% of workers in Quebec and Canada who are receiving EI will be left high and dry, on the basis that the pandemic is over. It does seem to be over, since Bill C‑31 would implement measures to increase families' purchasing power, given that we are in the midst of a postpandemic surge in inflation, which we hope is temporary.

Enough with this nonsense. People need real care. Children need real dental care. The provinces are the experts here, and that is how it should be. The government must keep its word.

I want to conclude by saying that we will vote in favour of the bill because we support the principle. I think it needs some work in committee. With a few fillings, some fluoride, a good brushing, a rinse and a few amendments, this bill might just pass the smell test.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member is going to be supporting the bill. It is a good piece of legislation. There are some provinces that actually advance dental care more than other provinces. The legislation we are talking about would assist thousands of children in all regions of the country, including in the province of Quebec, where I would see it more so as complementing the services Quebec currently offers.

Why, in any fashion, would the Bloc prevent a federal initiative that would provide badly needed dental care to children of all regions of our country?

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

Madam Speaker, I am starting to have some experience here, so I know not to expect the member for Winnipeg North to actually listen to my speech. I said that the bill is full of cavities, but, speaking of care, there might be a way to make it better.

I understand that the member comes from a province that does not have a progressive provincial dental insurance program like Quebec does. I understand that it is not part of his culture to know that Quebec already has this type of program. The government is not helping families by duplicating the program, by complicating it and by creating obstacles for families who want an increase in family benefits. Rather than giving them money, the government is telling them to go to the CRA to have their claims verified. How is that good news for families? I would like someone to explain that to me.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I am more hopeful and optimistic than he is because, last year, in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, when I met up with people in parks or went door-knocking, people really seemed to care about dental coverage whenever we talked about it. Not everyone has supplementary insurance or coverage through some kind of public plan, so people really want this.

After the Liberals voted twice against NDP proposals to make dental care available to the poor and the middle class, we used our leverage in the House to force the Liberals to do just that, for the benefit of families, workers and anyone who cannot afford dental care. By the end of the year, dental care will be covered for kids aged 12 and under, and by next year, it will be covered for teenagers and seniors. This is good news for poor and middle-class Quebeckers, and it is all thanks to the work being done by the NDP.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP member just demonstrated the problem.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie is going to tell his constituents that they have dental insurance. However, when parents in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie go to the dentist with their nine-year-old child, they will realize that they still have the same insurance they had before, the one from Quebec, and they will have to ask for a slightly higher receipt and get services that are not covered in order to get the full amount.

It seems that the member spends a lot of time in parks like Molson park. I hope he will take the opportunity to tell people that to get better benefits for children they will have to waste a lot of time with CRA and maybe even suffer through an audit if the dentist cancels their day. I wish him luck at the parks.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to begin this first speech of the fall session by taking the time to salute my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, not only those who re-elected me just a year ago, but all my constituents since I share my days with them. What brings us together goes beyond partisanship and politics, and so I send them my regards.

My speech today should be of interest to my constituents because it is about things that affect their daily lives, things they work hard for, in other words, rent, dental insurance, quality of life and so on.

I will talk about two things: the dental benefit and the rent support program.

This spring, when we were getting ready to vote on the budget implementation bill, some members in the House stated loud and clear that they were voting in favour of the bill in order to keep one of their promises, which was one of the reasons they reached an agreement with the Liberal Party, namely the implementation of dental insurance.

However, the current bill does not actually establish dental insurance. A benefit and insurance are two completely different concepts. Insurance pays for all or part of the dental care a person receives in a year. A benefit is an amount of money given at some point during the year. Too bad if it does not cover all the costs, but it is nice if it does.

In this case, we are talking about $650 a year for a family earning less than $70,000 in that year. I have four children. There have been times in my life when my spouse and I have made less than $70,000 a year. Quebec covers some dental care, but not basic care like annual scaling and cleaning, or sealing pits and fissures in adult teeth to prevent cavities. It was over $400 a year for basic care for my four children. Two of them required appointments every six months. I am fastidious about dental hygiene. There are years when we had to cut our budget to make sure our children saw a dentist. There are years when they did not see one at all because we could not afford it.

In addition to not adequately covering people's needs, getting the benefit is going to be a pain, because parents have to claim it through CRA's My Account portal. As my colleague said, that means parents need access to a computer and the Internet, which not everyone has. When people have to cut spending, the Internet is often one of the things they let go of. Parents also have to trust a system that has either lost data or been hacked in recent years. Sounds great, right?

Why not set up a simpler process, such as using health cards? True, health cards are within the purview of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, not the federal government.

Need I remind the House that dental care is health care and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec and the Canadian provinces? Quebec has dental insurance, as I said earlier. It used to be much more comprehensive, but is only partial now. When federal health transfers were pared down in the 1990s, Quebec and the Canadian provinces had to make tough choices. One of those choices was to reduce the age of eligibility for free dental care from 18 to 10. My father did not have to pay for my dental care because it was covered.

The federal government is once again infringing on an area of Quebec or provincial jurisdiction rather than fulfilling its constitutional duty with regard to health transfers. It is rather ridiculous that the separatist party in the House is the one reminding the federal government of its constitutional duties. The government wants to look like the great saviour when it is actually the one that has been causing these problems since the 1990s. Basically, the government is pulling a Perry, the firefighter who set fire to the Montreal Parliament building in 1849. He knew how to set fires and put them out.

By cutting health transfers, the federal government knew full well that the burden would fall on the shoulders of Quebec and the provinces rather than on its own. It knew that Quebec and the provinces would be forced to cut public services and programs. It knew that those cuts would tarnish the reputation of Quebec and the provinces. It knew that, as a result, over time, any separatist movement in Quebec or the other provinces would be undermined. However, the bad news is that the opposite is happening. What is good news for Quebec and the provinces may not be good news for the federal government.

The federal government is the main reason for the cuts in Quebec and the provinces, the same federal government that, today, is setting itself up as the great saviour of services and keeps repeating that it is not an ATM. I would like to remind the federal government that the money in that so-called ATM belongs to citizens. That money did not grow on trees. The federal government needs to abide by the constitutional agreements and increase transfers to the amount called for by Quebec and the provinces. That is a good deal, because they are only calling for 35% when, under the agreements, the federal government should be paying them 50%.

Some are sure to argue that the current bill introduces an interim measure for two years while a real insurance program is being created. What will happen in two years? There will probably be an election. The interim measure might end up being in place longer than expected, to the point of being seen as permanent. It is kind of the same thing with employment insurance, which has its share of problems. We are told the situation is temporary and that improvements will be made. That was supposed to happen this summer. The reform will be put off indefinitely even though the government says it is urgent. We have heard that before.

In the parliamentary process, suggestions can be made in the form of amendments introduced in committee. The first suggestion would definitely be to respect constitutional agreements regarding health transfers. The second may be to give Quebec and those provinces that may choose to do so the option of opting out with compensation. Doing so would be in line with the Constitution in that it would keep the federal government out of jurisdictions that are not its own.

I now want to briefly talk about my daughter's experience as a renter. My darling Zoé managed to find a place to live 20 minutes from her work and 40 minutes from her school by bus. The apartment is two rooms, in a dark, unheated semi-basement. The cheapest she could find was $900. The $500 a year would represent around 0.46% of her housing costs. That does not include food. She is fortunate that mom and dad can help her, but that is not the case for everyone. The figure of 0.46% in no way commensurate with inflation, which is hovering around 7% and is even higher for rents. It makes no sense to me when someone claims that taking 10% off of $2,500 makes a housing unit affordable. That is more expensive than a mortgage and it makes no sense.

Sending this cheque is not unlike patching a crumbling wall with a glue stick. The wall needs to be fixed. In other words, we need programs that are sustainable and predictable. It is ridiculous that an organization would go through the hassle of creating an entire housing program only to be told, “sorry, but the deadline has passed”. The organization wasted $35,000 to $50,000 on expertise and wages that turned out to be completely useless.

Starting in 2016, 100,000 units per year were supposed to be built in order to meet the growing demographic need. 2016 was six years ago, so we are talking about 600,000 units. Things are not getting any better. I would hope that no one here has had to cut up towels to make diapers, like I did. I hope that no one here has had to stock their cupboard with beans, instant rice, peanut butter and bread to feed their family, like I did. I hope no one has had to roll their pennies to buy milk. That is where unaffordable rent gets us.

I still have laundry—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I apologize to the hon. member, but her time is up. I am certain she will be able to elaborate on that during questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the member has said. For the Prime Minister, the government and the constituents I represent, the Canada Health Act and the health and general well-being of Canadians from coast to coast to coast are things we are greatly concerned about. That is why we have invested historic amounts of money. Never before has a federal government given as much money toward health care as this government has. That is why we have invested in things such as mental health and long-term care.

Today's bill is all about providing dental care and making it affordable for children under the age of 12. Is this member, and the member who spoke before her, trying to say that it does not complement the system in the province of Quebec? Not all provinces are equal. Is she saying that not one of her constituents would benefit by this program? If she is, she is wrong.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's propensity for putting words in my mouth is incredible.

I did not say that no one would benefit from this. I said that these services fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. If a Canadian province, such as his, wants to have access to dental insurance, real dental insurance, not a temporary cheque, then so be it. However, the other provinces, the ones that want to manage this jurisdiction of service delivery on their own, should have the right to opt out with compensation.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I was touched when she talked about how people are going through tough times, how they are struggling and living off of rice and peanut butter. As the cost of living goes up, we are seeing more and more of that in our communities.

I am quite proud of what we have been able to accomplish by forcing the Liberals to bring in measures that will really help people. Yes, the money for dental care this year is a temporary measure. It is not real insurance yet. We are working on adding teens, seniors and people with disabilities next year. Other measures, such as doubling the GST/HST credit, will help people in need who are having trouble paying for groceries these days. We also talked the government into a $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for people who are finding it hard to pay the rent. That extra $500 will help 580,000 Quebeckers.

For all these reasons, I think today's bill is good news for the people of Quebec.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, this is certainly good news, but it is temporary.

Perhaps some will say that I live in a fantasy world, but, in my mind, the government's goal and our objective in this Parliament should be to protect the dignity of the most vulnerable in our society, and not just to win the next election, but really for the long term. This program is nothing more than paltry cheques that amount to temporary band-aids on the gaping wounds that are the insufficient health transfers and the deeply flawed building programs that have been in place since 2016, at least.

There is currently a shortage of 600,000 homes. If we had had an adequate supply of housing, prices would not have skyrocketed the way they did.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend both of my colleagues who spoke before me for their speeches.

I do not know if the Liberals found it painful to have to create this program, perhaps like having a tooth extracted. This is not dental insurance. The Liberals are sending a cheque for dental care in order to save face with Quebec and Canadian families. This is not a dental care program.

Would my colleague not agree that this is counterproductive?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. A cheque is not insurance.

What we need to do is work on bringing in real insurance with the right to opt out with compensation for Quebec and the Canadian provinces that wish to administer that insurance themselves.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the context of the situation we are in right now and what is going on across our country. Over the past summer, I spent a lot of time travelling and hearing people's stories. Canadians are going through a tough time right now. They have already been through a difficult time with the pandemic and now, on top of those struggles, which people have gotten through and continue to feel, we have a cost-of-living and inflation crisis that is driving up the cost of everything.

That means that people are struggling to pay for everything, to buy their groceries, to put food on the table and gas in their cars, but what I heard from people that really struck me was their feeling that, no matter how hard they work, no matter how much they are doing everything that, in their minds, they need to do and doing everything right, they are still falling behind. That is a very difficult thing to feel. It makes one feel very hopeless and frustrated, and understandably so. When people are doing everything right, they should be able to have the respect and dignity to put food on the table, pay their bills and take care of their families.

Clearly people are struggling. When I talk to Canadians across the country, they tell me their story. They tell me that they work very hard, but even so, it is becoming harder and harder for them to make ends meet. They cannot afford to buy the same food they used to, and they cannot get what they need. That is the reality. They fear for the future, and they are frustrated. I understand that because that is the reality.

I also understand what that is like because I have lived it. I remember the difficult times my brother and I had. When I was going to university, I had a kid brother that I had to take care of, and I had to work a bunch of jobs to make sure that I was able to put food on the table, not only for myself, but also for my younger brother. The worry and fear of not being able to take care of a loved one really weighs on a person. It is a lot of pressure, and a lot of families are experiencing that right now.

At the same time, while workers' wages are not keeping up with inflation, CEOs' salaries are skyrocketing. CEOs are not having any struggles. Their wages and salaries are going up while those of workers' are lagging behind. It is clear that is wrong and it should not be this way. In fact, it does not have to be this way.

There is a war being waged right now on workers and working families across this country. We are witnessing a massive transfer of wealth from hard-working, honest Canadians to the pockets of billionaires, and behind every billionaire is a Liberal or Conservative government that allowed the exploitation and disrespect of workers, the brutality of corporate greed and tax loopholes that stole wealth from Canadians. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money in corporate welfare went directly to CEOs and wealthy corporations.

Behind every working family in this country are New Democrats fighting for and demanding respect and dignity, forcing CEOs to pay what they owe and making sure that government has Canadians' backs, because it is hard-working Canadians, the workers and not the greedy CEOs, who make our country an incredible place. That is why, for the past number of months, we have been pushing hard on the government to respond the needs of people.

Last spring, we said that we should double the GST tax credit to put more of Canadians' own money back into their pockets to deal with everything becoming more expensive. The Liberals said no. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government were too busy saying it was not their fault and that it is worse in other countries to act to find solutions to support people in this time. Had the government shown leadership when we demanded more money to be put back in Canadians' pockets, people would have had $500 in their pockets earlier to pay their bills over the summer.

That is the problem with the Liberals. When people need help, they study, they consult, they find excuses not to take action. In the meantime, people are suffering. When it is wealthy CEOs making demands, the Liberals spring into action. That is the problem.

We have seen this again and again. When wealthy CEOs come knocking, Liberals and Conservatives leap into action. These measures could have made a massive difference in people's lives if they had been passed earlier. People would have been able to have this respect and dignity over the summer. It could have helped families get ready for their kids going back to school.

That is the issue with the Liberals. They are too busy pointing fingers elsewhere and saying it is not their fault and that it is worse in other countries. That might be true, but it does not help the family who is looking at its bills right now and asking what it will do to pay them.

It is frustrating we need to force the government to act every time people need support. Then there are the Conservatives, who think everyone should just be on their own. They want to inflame the anger and frustration Canadians rightly feel, but they do not want to provide any solutions that would actually make people's lives better right now. A family that is struggling to pay its bills wants some respect and dignity now. A family that cannot afford for its kids to go to the dentist needs that support immediately. That is what we are doing.

The Conservatives' approach has always been to let people fend for themselves. If people are having a hard time paying for day care or medication or if they have lost their job and need help, the Conservatives tell them to figure it out. Canadians have seen the results of this approach. The ultrarich reap the benefits. Ordinary people suffer and are ignored.

I want to be clear about what we are facing right now in this country. We are facing a cost-of-living increase and rising inflation that is being driven by corporate greed. We are experiencing “greedflation”. No one else wants to talk about that. No one else wants to point to the fact that, while workers' wages have not kept up, CEO salaries have skyrocketed and wealthy corporations have seen massive profits. They have taken this moment in time, this crisis, as an opportunity to jack up their prices beyond increased costs, which is why they are experiencing these massive profits, and people are hurting.

Inflation is not the workers' fault, as many folks want to suggest. It is the result of CEOs seizing on this difficult moment and increasing their profits, which is hurting Canadians.

When we asked both the Liberals and the Conservatives about doing something to take on this corporate greed, both said no time and time again. They said no to making CEOs pay what they owe. They said no to making sure the wealthiest corporations are paying what they owe. They are fine with rich CEOs doing what they want while workers continue to struggle to make ends meet.

New Democrats believe it should not be the workers who need to pay the price. It should not be on the shoulders of workers that we tackle the rising cost of living. It should be wealthy CEOs, those at the very top, who contribute what they owe so we can tackle what we are going through right now.

On what we are experiencing and seeing right now in the House, the solutions being proposed and presented, I want Canadians to know very clearly that we have been fighting for them from the beginning. We have been fighting for them since we have seen the cost of living rise. Because we have fought for them, 12 million Canadians are going to receive up to $467 back in their pockets. Because we kept on fighting for them, Canadians are going to be able to have their kids' teeth looked after. Because we kept fighting for them, those who are having a hard time paying their rents are going to get respect. Because we fought for them, these things were possible.

Thanks to New Democrats, who kept on fighting and did not give up, workers will have money in their pockets. Had we given up, 12 million Canadians would not be receiving up to $467 to help them make ends meet. Had we given up, two million Canadians would not be receiving an additional $500 to help pay the rent. Had we not fought, parents of children under 12 years of age would not be receiving $1,300 over the next two years to pay for their children's dental care.

In the last election, my team and I committed to Canadians that we would fight to make sure we made their lives better. We listened to what Canadians told us was important. So many people across this country said, “We are hurting and we cannot take care of our kid's teeth” or “We are struggling and we need respect and dignity”. We heard them. We listened to Canadians, and we are delivering. It is because Canadians raised these concerns that today we are debating, in the House, solutions to solve the problems they told us they are up against.

We heard the heartbreaking stories of Canadians who had to choose between paying the dental care bills for their kids or putting food on the table. No one should have to make that type of decision.

When we were campaigning, we reached out to Canadians to hear how our policies would help them and what they were going through that they needed support on. One of the stories I think a lot about was when I spoke with Adam, who has two kids, both under 12. He told me that both of his kids needed about $1,000 each of dental care. Although he is earning a decent salary, with all the bills that he has to pay, he is not sure that he can afford it. He will have to take out a loan to pay for his kids to get their teeth looked after. He told me that he had thought many times about waiting until their adult teeth came in, and I could hear in his voice the guilt and shame that maybe he was being a bad dad because he was considering putting off the care that his kids needed because he just could not afford it. I told him that it was not his fault, that he was doing everything right, and that we needed to do better to make sure he could get his kids looked after.

I had the opportunity to talk to Adam after we were able to secure this massive victory for people, and I asked him, “What does this mean to you?” I cannot explain his voice, the lifting of guilt, the optimism, the hope. He said he was going to be able to look after his kids' teeth, that this was going to make a huge difference in their lives, and it was only possible because of this program.

That is what this means to so many Canadians. There are so many people out there who are struggling with what they can do for their kids, but they do not know if they afford it and they are having to make impossible decisions. Parents should never be put in that position, and we are taking a step forward to make sure that parents do not have to make those decisions.

With the interim benefit, for a family who has a child under 12, for one child, they will receive $650 per year. In a less than two-year span, about 18 months, they will receive up to $1,300 per child. In the case of Adam, for his two children, that will be $2,600. He will absolutely be able to take care of his kids' teeth. That is going to make a huge difference in Adam's life, in his children's lives and for hundreds of thousands of families across this country.

Once it is up and running, this national dental care program will provide coverage for seven to nine million Canadians. Families will save at least $1,200 a year. This program will change lives and stop people from having to seek emergency treatment for problems that could have been prevented.

Unfortunately, all of this could have been implemented years ago. Years ago, when we put forward our dental care plan in this very chamber, in this Parliament, both the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to vote against it. We could have had this program up and running already. Millions of Canadians could have accessed it. On two previous occasions, specifically in the House, we put this plan to a vote and both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. Now we are proud to say that it is moving forward and we are going to make it happen.

I also want to point out that the leader of the official opposition does not believe Canadians should get this dental coverage, despite the fact that he has no problem with having his own dental care coverage since his mid-twenties, which has been paid for by the public. He thinks it is wrong that families in Canada that do not have coverage should get dental care coverage. I would like to see how he explains that to the nearly nine million Canadians who are going to get this dental care benefit. Why does he think they do not deserve dental care when he has been benefiting from it, through taxpayer dollars, for nearly two decades?

We believe fundamentally that, as a nation, we are stronger and better when we take care of one another, when we lift each other up. We are better when we look out for one another. Because of New Democrats, every Canadian in this country, when this plan is up and running, who needs care and does not have coverage will be able to look after their teeth. That is a massive step forward.

I also want to talk about another major concern when it comes to the cost of living. We know, in addition to these major steps that we have taken, there is a lot more that Canadians need. Another major concern when we talk about the cost of living is housing. We know in this country, no matter where a person lives, people are feeling squeezed when it comes to finding something in their budget to either own or rent. People are often giving up the dream of owning because it is just so expensive. We want to make sure that Canadians have that respect and dignity. We want to make sure that Canadians have the ability to find a home that is in their budget. That is why we forced the government to change the definition around what is affordable. If a private developer receives public money, what they are building has to be a home, it has to be a project, that is truly affordable.

I want to talk about some of the differences that we have made when it comes to that definition. A lot more needs to be done, but this is a big step forward in where we are putting our money. Previously, under the Liberal definition, a housing project only had to have 20% of the units affordable. In a city like Toronto, under their definition, $2,229 for a one-bedroom apartment was considered affordable. We have changed that definition. Now a building has to have at least 40% affordable. The new definition of an affordable one-bedroom apartment has to be $1,256, which is a massive reduction. That is a huge difference.

We know this is going to help but it is not all. We need to invest massively in building more not-for-profit housing, in co-operative housing and in housing that is there for people when they need it, whether it is to rent or to own. We know we can do that if we make it a priority.

More than ever before, people want politicians to roll up their sleeves and work hard for them, not for rich CEOs. They know that CEOs' interests will be represented, and that is what has caused so much frustration. If we want to change the situation, we have to help them.

We know that for so long decisions were made that benefited those at the top and benefited CEOs. Canadians are demanding that we make decisions that benefit them, their families and workers. That is what we are here to do.

These three initiatives that are before the House are big steps forward, but we know a lot more is needed. We are going to continue to fight for Canadians to make sure they have the respect and dignity they deserve, to be able to own and afford a place they can call their own, to be able to find the means to support their family, to put food on the table and to pay their bills. We see them, we hear them and we are going to fight for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the leader has made. In listening to the debate today, it is disappointing to see that the Conservatives, in contrast to the government and the NDP, seem to not want to support our children. This bill is focused, in terms of children under 12, in providing a benefit that will truly have a positive impact. Then there were the concerns expressed by the Bloc members that the people of Quebec would not necessarily benefit from the program.

Does the leader of the New Democratic Party not agree that today it is time for us to have a national footprint on the issue of dental care and that this is a good starting point, dealing with kids under the age of 12?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is an important step forward to provide that care for kids under 12.

However, I want to be clear that this could have happened a lot earlier if the Liberals and the Conservatives had not voted against it the previous two times we introduced this bill. We will move forward and continue to fight to make sure families get support and help so that Canadians across this country can take of their teeth and move forward in a healthy way. We can make that happen. We are confident that we can force the government to do that.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP talks a lot about affordability, the pressures Canadians are facing, respect and dignity, and how his party is fighting for Canadians.

Is this done by propping up the Liberal government, by voting with the Liberals to increase taxes, to increase bureaucracy, to increase red tape that makes life difficult for everyday Canadians? For example, the New Democrats have been supporting the failed carbon tax that does not work, but it does make food more expensive and home heating more expensive. It makes driving kids to and from sports more expensive.

Why does the leader of the NDP brag that he and his party are fighting for Canadians when they keep voting for tax increases and increased bureaucratic red tape?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have before the House are three concrete ways that, instead of just talking about it or inflaming anger, we are actually going to give people respect and dignity.

We are going to give more money back into people's pockets. We are going to give people the respect to be able to pay their rent. We are going to make sure families are able to look after their teeth. Those are concrete steps to make people's lives better, rather than what the Conservatives have been doing, which is inflaming a lot of anger and building on that anger, but not really doing much beyond that to make people's lives better. We have concretely put forward proposals that would change Canadians' lives. We are proud of that. We know that there is a lot more that needs to be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I have been hearing from my colleague, the leader of the NDP, is nothing new. He is always promoting greater federal interference in provincial jurisdictions and, in particular, Quebec's jurisdictions.

He made an impassioned plea for better dental care. I completely agree that we need better dental care. However, does the member not realize that Quebec already has a dental plan for families with children under 10?

A new federal program like the one being proposed would do nothing for all of these Quebeckers. If the Government of Quebec wanted its fair share, it could decide to make cuts to ensure that Quebeckers have access to this new benefit. Is my colleague aware of the negative impacts this bill would have on some Quebeckers?

That is what we would have to do if we wanted to be consistent and wanted to get our fair share. That is not what I want, however. I want better coverage. What we ultimately want is for the federal government to give proper compensation to Quebec.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec always has the right to opt out with full compensation.

I want to share a story. I was in a taxi in Quebec City. The driver told me that the most important thing for him was dental care. This senior citizen said that he really appreciated the fact that I was trying to implement that kind of program. He never mentioned infringing on jurisdictions. He said that he wanted a dental care program.

Perhaps my hon. colleague should try talking to people. Ordinary people want programs that work. Ordinary people do not talk about jurisdictions or interference. They want us to help them and respect them. They want to be able to get dental care.

That is exactly what we are going to give our seniors across the country over the coming year. They will be able to get dental care, and that will be done while respecting jurisdictions. However, I still want to point out that ordinary people do not talk about that. We respect Quebec's jurisdiction and will continue to do so.

People want respect and programs that help them, and that is exactly what we will give them.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share a story of a couple, with three kids, in my riding. She is a person with a disability. He is making under $50,000. When they heard about this announcement, he said that it could not come fast enough and she said that it would be life-changing. Last year, when the Liberals and Conservatives voted against dental care, they made this family struggle for another year.

We have three approaches in the House: the Conservatives, who leave these families to fend for themselves; the Liberals, who have to be forced into doing the right thing; and, the New Democrats, who are going to keep fighting for people.

Could the member please speak about the people with disabilities, the seniors and the families with kids under 18, for whom we will keep fighting?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and dear friend raises a really important issue. People waiting for this care could have got it earlier. We want them to know that we are fighting for them, and by next year there will be a national federal program that will cover children 18 and under, seniors and people living with disabilities. This will provide so much help those people. As the hon. member for Victoria mentioned, it will be life-changing.

I want the family she mentioned to know that we will be fighting for it. We are going to ensure it gets that respect and dignity. We will ensure that members of the family are able to take care of their teeth. We are going to make that happen.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the leader of the NDP to get this support to Canadians across the country. That being said, a $500 cheque does not address the fundamental market conditions that are benefiting institutional investors, leading to increased rents for seniors on fixed incomes and young people being priced out of the housing market altogether.

I know the member agrees that more needs to be done. I wonder if he could share what he thinks all parliamentarians could do to rise past the partisanship and work together to ensure that homes are places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague has raised a real concern with which Canadians are faced. The fact that first-time homebuyers are competing with corporations that have billions of dollars to purchase properties to make more profit is unfair. It is a fundamental problem we are up against. We need to get at that. That is why we have called for changes to the way we approach housing.

Financialization and commodification are serious problems that need to be addressed. Housing should be about people being able to find a place to call their own, a place to live. That has not been the case for a long time now. There are specific changes we can make to the tax laws that will disincentivize property flipping or corporations from purchasing properties and to ensure that home ownership, being able to find a place to rent or own, is for families, people and workers. That is something we can do. We have to make it a priority.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before proceeding to the next speaker, we have a point of order from the hon. member for Oshawa.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that this morning, at around 10 a.m., when the House of Commons began sitting, I was waiting to be accepted into the Zoom meeting. As it is Thursday, Routine Proceedings is the first item on the agenda, which is a very important part of any sitting day. While I was waiting to be accepted into the meeting, the session began.

I am not a big fan of a hybrid Parliament, but if it is to be used, then it must be used in a fair way. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to please ensure that those of us trying to log onto the online meeting are accepted and online before starting the session. Those of us who logged online early, before the session started, have the right to participate fully.

I am sure this was just an anomaly for today, as it has worked fine in the past, but I felt you should be made aware of it, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member. The Internet being the way it is, once again, the camera actually did not key to show in the House of Commons. We will go back and look at the log-in sequence to ensure that everything was working correctly for today.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the most hon. member for Halifax West.

As always, it is a true honour for me to rise in this venerable House to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport.

I will be speaking to Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing. More specific, I will be speaking about how the federal government is working to immediately make accessing dental care for children across Canada more affordable through the Canada dental benefit. This is important to families in my riding of Davenport, particularly those families that do not have access to dental insurance and whose household incomes are below $90,000.

Indeed, Canadians are feeling the rising cost of living, particularly through higher food prices and rent. While inflation is a global challenge caused by the pandemic and Russia's illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, it is important for our government to help families weather the impact of higher costs by putting more money back in the pockets of the middle class and those who are working hard to join it.

The introduction of Bill C-31 by our Ministers of Health and Housing is a critical step in improving oral health for children and delivering on our commitment to financially help Canadians deal with the rising cost of living. By helping families afford the dental care their children need, this new benefit would support families that need it the most, when they need it the most.

Helping Canadian families weather the impacts of inflation by working to put more money back in their pockets this year is a priority for our government. This investment in dental care for children without dental insurance would build on the strategic investments our government is making to support Canadians, by making life more affordable and building an economy that works for all, while at the same time helping our youngest members of society get off to the right start and have healthier oral health while suffering less pain.

Since 2015, our federal government has cut taxes for the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. We have delivered a Canada child benefit and raised it every year, to continue putting more money back in the pockets of nine out of 10 families with children, and we will have cut regulated child care fees in half on average by the end of this year for families across the country. These are just a few examples of how we are delivering support for lower and middle-income Canadians.

The federal government has also taken steps to support our universal health care system through a one-time top up to the Canada health transfer of $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help reduce backlogs for surgeries, building on the $45.2 billion provinces and territories will receive this year.

Our federal government has taken important steps to make a real difference for families across the country, and I am incredibly proud of the significant long-term sustained investments the government is making to help deliver a more affordable and better quality of life for families across Canada.

That being said, we know that dental care is an integral facet of the overall health of Canadians and that poor oral health can have costly personal and financial repercussions.

It is estimated that the negative impacts of poor oral health account for productivity losses of over $1 billion per year, as well as approximately two million missed school days annually. This outcome increases public spending in cost-intensive health care areas, such as cardiac and emergency care. By making dental care more affordable for middle-class families, we believe the Canada dental benefit would help greatly reduce these costly and serious negative impacts.

We also know that cost is a significant barrier to accessing dental care for many Canadians. Among children, much of the burden of dental disease is concentrated in children from low-income families. That is why we have introduced this legislation to break the cycle of poor oral health for the youngest Canadians and to help ensure families can afford dental care for their children.

We estimate that over 500,000 Canadian children could benefit from this investment and that the cost of this targeted investment is estimated to be $938 million. It is absolutely a worthwhile investment and the legislation, if passed, will make it more affordable for parents to take their children to see a dental professional, so children across the country can receive the care they need.

The Canada dental benefit for children without insurance under the age of 12 will help parents with income under $90,000 purchase needed dental care for their children. The Canada dental benefit would provide direct payments to eligible applicants, totalling up to $650 per year, per child for dental care services for applicants with a family income of under $70,000. It would be $390 for those with a family income of $70,000 to $79,999, and $260 for those with a family income of $80,000 to $89,999. Parents or guardians of eligible children who have dental needs would need to apply to access payments.

Our federal government will be taking action to ensure that Canadians receive the benefit as quickly as possible. The legislation would give the Minister of Health authority to implement this application-based upfront benefit payment to eligible Canadians later this year.

The targeted implementation date for the Canada dental benefit is December 1, pending parliamentary approval and royal assent for enabling legislation. The program would cover expenses retroactive to October 1, so long as the child remains eligible on December 1.

Canadians will be able to apply for and receive the benefit upfront before accessing dental care. Eligible Canadians can apply via the Canada Revenue Agency's secure My Account portal or by calling the Canada Revenue Agency's client contact centre.

Our federal government will ensure that applications will be processed quickly, automatically in many cases, with payments received within a week for individuals requesting direct deposit.

We understand that dental care needs vary from one child to the next, which is why we are providing flexibility for the Canada dental benefit to be used for any dental care provided by a regulated oral health professional licensed to practise in the applicant's province or territory.

This flexibility will position parents to have discussions with their oral health care provider to determine the most appropriate dental care treatment for their children.

It is important to note that the Canada dental benefit will not reduce other federal income tested benefits, such as the Canada worker benefit, the Canada child benefit and the goods and services tax credit.

Our federal government will ensure that Canadians receive the information they need to apply for and receive the Canada dental benefit. Through a joint collaboration between Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, a public education campaign for the Canada dental benefit will be launched, with tailored messaging providing essential information on who qualifies and how to access this funding.

Our federal government will engage with stakeholders, such as provincial and territorial dental associations, to promote the Canada dental benefit and provide essential information for qualifying families to be able to understand how the benefit will work for them, recognizing that the Canada dental benefit is the first stage of the government's plan for making dental care more affordable for Canadians.

I am pleased to also see that our federal government is committed to providing dental care to Canadians and continues to take needed steps to build a comprehensive, national long-term dental care program.

Just to remind everyone, federal budget 2022 proposes to provide funding of $5.3 billion over five years and $1.7 billion ongoing to deliver a dental care program for low-income Canadians and to help provide dental care for Canadians who are unable to access care because of the cost and/or because they do not have dental insurance.

The legislation strikes the right balance between ensuring that the immediate needs of low and middle-class children are met, as well as setting the ground work for a comprehensive dental care program.

I know that this benefit will help many families, not only in my riding of Davenport but families right across the country. I ask all members of the House to join us in supporting this much-needed legislation.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just two days ago in a speech, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Beaudry, said that in hindsight, governments and central banks should have withdrawn stimulus measures earlier to keep a lid on inflation. Why is the government ignoring his advice completely and adding $4.5 billion in additional stimulus spending, which will make inflation even higher? These benefits will be eaten up by additional inflation in no time flat.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are ensuring that we invest and make targeted investments in Canadians, and we are providing support to our most vulnerable Canadians and to those who need it the most.

This is not a big spending plan. It is very targeted. Economists have already opined that it is not anticipated, in any way, to add to inflation.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague realizes that the $500 given annually to low-income families to help them pay for housing works out to just $42 a month, the equivalent of less than a week's worth of milk for a family of four. The cost of milk for a week is now between $50 and $60. This is just a band-aid solution that fails to address much more significant needs, including the urgent need for well-built housing. There is a shortage of over 600,000 units.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing is a huge worry not only for the residents of my riding of Davenport but for all Canadians. That is why our government, since we were elected, has announced a national housing strategy, to which we have allocated $72 billion.

As part of that housing strategy, we have also introduced the Canada housing benefit to help the most vulnerable Canadians at the lowest end of the income scale afford their rent. There is a one-time top-up as part of Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, which are all about providing targeted investments to Canadians who need it the most. We are providing an additional $500 on top of all the other benefits we are providing to Canadians at this particular time.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about an economy that works for everyone. Well, the PBO put out a report recently and cited that the top 1% of families in this country hold 25% of the wealth while the bottom 40% hold 1.1% of the wealth.

Meanwhile, we are seeing grocery store chains, banks and oil and gas and telecom companies make record profits, while groceries, bank fees, gas and wireless fees go up. Greedflation has taken hold. We live in a country that has the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7. Meanwhile, children cannot get their teeth fixed and we have seniors who need help.

When are the Liberals going to address the greedflation? We know that the Conservatives, who are the gatekeepers for those big corporations, are not going to address it. Is the Liberal government going to do something about it? I ask because we are waiting and those people desperately need help. We are glad to see the Liberals finally vote in support of our measure on dental care, but what took them so long?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We should ensure that every Canadian pays their fair share of taxes.

We have already announced that we are permanently raising the corporate income tax rate by 1.5% on Canada's largest, most profitable banks and insurance companies, and we have introduced a recovery dividend of 15% on the excess profits of these institutions during the COVID pandemic. We have also implemented, effective September 1, a 10% luxury tax on private jets and luxury cars worth more than $100,000, and boats and yachts worth more than $250,000.

On the point of providing supports to Canadians, we have been doing so since we were elected in late 2015. We increased taxes on the top 1%. We reduced them on the middle class. We have increased the Canada workers benefit three times. We introduced the Canada child benefit. We introduced national child care.

We have been there for Canadians. We will continue to be there for Canadians moving forward.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise here in the chamber on behalf of the good people of Halifax West, and especially today as we debate Bill C-31, an important and timely piece of legislation that would put money back into the pockets of some of the families that need it the most.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-31 and talk about what the federal government is doing to make life more affordable for families across the country as quickly as possible.

Over the summer, I heard from many about the local challenges that global inflation has brought to my community. It just takes looking at the price of groceries at the supermarket to know why affordability is so top of mind for my constituents and for all Canadians.

Let us be clear from the get-go: Inflation is a problem for Canadians, but it is not a Canada problem. Countries around the world are living through the same difficult moment of high inflation, fuelled largely by Russia's barbaric war of choice, the still-present COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions. This is a fact, but it is not an excuse not to act to make things easier for Canadians. That is what we are doing with Bill C-31, taking steps that are practical, prudent and targeted, because we know inflation is hitting hard and we understand that not every household is feeling the pinch in the same way.

Let us acknowledge a simple truth: Lower-income households have to spend a higher proportion of their household income feeding the family. When prices at the grocery store increase, as we have seen, the relative hit to their family budget is going to be greater than for others. It is the reason we are introducing measures that are very intentionally designed to support those feeling the sting of inflation the most.

Bill C-31 would enact two important measures to address the cost of living: the Canada dental benefit and a one-time top-up to the Canadian housing benefit. Let me speak first about the Canada housing benefit.

The top-up we are proposing 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. It 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 adjusted net income on rent.

In these thresholds, we see proof that our government's focus is squarely on helping those facing the greatest hardship from the current moment. I think of the seniors on fixed incomes, the low-income students trying to keep on top of everything and the single parents. This top-up would put $500 in their pockets to keep food on the table and pay the rent and utilities. It is support that renters and families in my riding need now. I certainly hope we can move quickly with Bill C-31 so we can get the CRA application portal launched and relief into the hands of the people of Halifax West.

The bill before us would also provide for the Canada dental benefit, the first step in our work to establish a comprehensive national dental care program for families making less than $90,000 a year. The benefit would be provided to children under 12 who do not have access to dental insurance, starting this year. Direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child under 12 over the next two years, which is $650 per annum, would be provided for dental care services. That is significant new money for families and it is also an acknowledgement that dental health, like mental health and prescriptions, cannot be separated from health care as if it is somehow different.

Let us remember how much this is needed. A third of Canadians currently do not have dental insurance. In 2018, more than one in five Canadians reported avoiding dental care because of the cost.

In inflationary times, it is not hard to imagine that even more uninsured Canadians may be putting off necessary and routine care to help with their family's bottom line. Half a million Canadian children stand to benefit from the Canada dental benefit, and it will not reduce other federal income-tested benefits that families rely on. This measure too is targeted to ensure we are investing our dollars in supporting those most in need.

That is why it is easy for me to support this bill. It is prudent, directed and builds upon the other parts of our affordability plan, namely the enhanced Canada workers benefit, reductions in child care fees, increases in old age security, the Canada child benefit, the doubling of the Canada student grant and many other supports. These are concrete and practical steps that leave more money in Canadians' pockets and protect their purchasing power.

There will certainly be more for us to do to make life more affordable, but the bill in front of us is a significant and timely step forward in that work.

I encourage my colleagues in the House of Commons to vote in favour of this bill.

I hope we can all support it and continue to look for solutions to the affordability challenges our constituents face.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way mentioned there is a lot more the government can do to increase affordability for Canadians. One thing I would suggest is abolishing the carbon tax, because it is a tax on the most basic of necessities, like food, home heating and fuel in vehicles to get from point A to point B.

There is one thing, though, that I want to mention. I received lots of calls in my office throughout the summer regarding passport delays. I definitely like decreased red tape and programs that are very effectively run.

Does the member believe that her government will be able to successfully and efficiently run a dental care program with little wait time, little red tape and quick service delivery?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, red tape reduction is something I strongly believe in. Certainly, when I was a cabinet minister in my own province of Nova Scotia, we worked extremely hard on red tape reduction. In fact, we won provincially on that.

Right now, the implementation of the dental health plan we are talking about is targeted, and the government has been working extremely hard with the provinces and territories, but also with the CRA, in order to implement it effectively.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I need my colleague's opinion. My thoughts are along the same lines as my Conservative colleague who spoke earlier.

As we know, the government has been dealing with numerous issues related to existing programs such as passports, employment insurance and so on. Considering that anyone could have predicted how complicated it would be to get this new benefit or cheque to mesh with the programs already in place in some provinces and in Quebec, would it not have been simpler to finally agree to the unanimous request that Quebec and the provinces have been making for years now?

Would it not have been simpler to increase health transfers to the provinces so that they could apply the funding to a dental insurance program, if they so choose, or improve other health care services? Would it not have been simpler, in light of how complicated everything is right now, to do that rather than add another layer of complex management?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I somewhat agree with my colleague, but health care must be an immediate priority for all governments, provincial, territorial and federal. This will not stop the provinces and territories from investing in their own health care systems. The idea is to complement those provincial investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the cost of living and the government's approach to that. It is great to see the Liberals finally supporting our long efforts on dental care. What she did not address is anything to tackle the massive profits being made by oil and gas corporations, grocery giants and these other companies that are benefiting from this crisis that Canadians are facing right now.

The U.K. government, a Conservative government, saw this opportunity and put in place a 25% excess profit tax on the oil and gas companies in that country. That would go a long way toward providing the revenue to put back into Canadians' pockets and provide the kind of support Canadians need. Would she support that kind of initiative here in Canada?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting all kinds of questions about so many topics. It is wonderful to be able to debate them all, but right now this bill is targeted at two very important issues. Those are issues that are deliberate, targeted and really help the people who need it the most right now. I am very pleased to know my colleague across the way is in full support of those benefits.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and be able to contribute to the debate we are having today on affordability. It is very timely, because Canadians are experiencing the result of the practices that this Liberal government has undertaken, which have really fuelled the inflationary fires that are burning across Canada. What we are experiencing is a made-in-Canada inflationary crisis. The more this Prime Minister spends, the more things cost. It has been referred to as “Justinflation”.

The proposals that the government is bringing forward will not address this inflation and in fact are going to add to the inflationary pressures that Canadians are facing. Its inflationary deficits are driving up taxes and costs at the fastest rate in more than my lifetime. Year-over-year inflation is higher than it has been in 40 years.

For two years, Conservatives have been warning the Liberal government about the consequences of its actions and how much it would hurt Canadians, and it is hurting Canadians right across our country.

What we have heard from this government this week is not the announcement of a dental plan. We heard a plan that the Liberals have concocted that is going to satisfy part of the deal with their coalition partner in the NDP to keep them in power, to prop them up. It is another example of the Prime Minister's failure to meet his promises, all the while printing more cash and borrowing more money that is going to stoke inflation.

I would like to note for everyone following the debate and for hon. members in the House that dental care programs for low-income children exist in all provinces and territories, save for Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, in addition to the 70% of Canadians who already have coverage.

It is important that we look after the health care of Canadians, and they have been doing this thing in Canada for a long time, since before I was born, where health care was a provincial responsibility. It was solely the jurisdiction of provinces. If there is a plan to meet with the premiers to discuss health care and the Prime Minister wants to do that, the premiers will be delighted.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader wants to contribute to the debate, and I hope that when he rises in questions and comments, he is prepared to tell the House and all Canadians that the Prime Minister is going to answer the call that the premiers have been making for two years to meet with them to discuss the state of health care in Canada.

Now, if the Right Hon. Prime Minister found his way to that meeting, he would hear that they are not looking for a dental care program. That is not what the provinces are asking for right now. However, if the Prime Minister is considering another line of work and interested in running to be a provincial premier, I am sure he can explore those job openings and see what is available. I hear that the Liberals' sister party in Ontario is looking for someone, so perhaps the member for Papineau could find a spot in Ontario.

However, this promise is only more inflationary spending. It is not a dental care program, and it is outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. The level of government that is responsible is not looking for the federal government to execute on it.

The Liberals have also talked about housing, which is so interesting, because Canadians could be confused. However, I think it might be intentional, that the government is looking to confuse them, because the Liberals love to talk about how much they have spent on housing.

No government has ever spent more on housing than this Liberal one, they will tell people. If we measured success by how much the Liberals spent and not by how many houses were built, they would be the international galactic champions of housing. Unfortunately, what we have seen is the doubling of house prices under the Liberals.

The result of that is that 30-year-olds are living in 400-square-foot apartments that they are paying $2,300 a month for, if they can find an apartment, and if not, they are living in mom or dad's basement and their dreams of home ownership are slipping away, if they have not been crushed already. In Vancouver, it is $2,600 a month for rent. In Toronto, it is $2,300 a month for rent.

Six in 10 Canadians will not qualify for what we will call the inflationary spending cheques. The few renters who see that $500 one-time boost, which represents less than a week of rent in the average housing unit in Toronto or Vancouver, are simply going to ask, “What is next?”

I am glad they are asking what is next. The Liberals have pumped more money into the economy, and they have created more inflation. That is what we have heard from big banks and from economists, that what they are doing is inflationary. It is going to diminish the value of the dollars that people earn, including those cheques that they just received, which will not go as far. Of course that does not speak to the fact that we are now going to have to pay interest on the money the Liberals borrowed to send those cheques that are going to diminish their spending power.

It is a terrible situation that the Liberals are perpetuating. There are solutions, and I look forward to sharing those with members as we move through this conversation today. What is it that we need to solve?

First, let us take a look at one of the major pain points that Canadians are feeling every month: food prices. Canadians are facing 10% food inflation right now. It is the fastest that it has gone up in over 40 years. What does that look like for the average Canadian family? It is between $1,200 and $2,000 more per year that they are spending on groceries. It is an extra $2,000 haircut that they are taking before they even spend a dollar.

These are some of the items this is having a dramatic effect on: butter is up 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; fish, 10.4%; breads, 17.6%; pasta, 32%; fresh fruit, 13%; oranges, 18.5%; coffee, 14.2%, and the list goes on and on. Let them eat soup, some might say, but that is up 19.2%.

While Canadians are struggling just to put food on the table for their families, furnaces are clicking on across the country as we speak. As the mercury drops, people are going to look to heat up their homes. We live in one of the world's coldest climates. Heating is not a luxury here, just like for many folks in rural and remote communities, driving their car or truck is not a luxury. It is part of how they have to live, to get to work or to doctor's appointments, or to get groceries.

The carbon tax is punishing Canadians for behaviour that the government says is bad, should be discouraged and needs to be corrected. The Liberals are going to tell us, in their questions and comments, that members are forgetting about the money they send back.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already said that the claims the government makes that Canadians get more back than they pay in do not work. This is some kind of weird Ponzi scheme the government has cooked up, and it is just that, a scheme. Canadians are not getting more back than they pay in. They are worse off, and emissions continue to go up. Tree planting from the government has stayed the same. That is that it has not planted any, but it has promised to.

Canadians would expect that, when Canadians are feeling that pain of the carbon tax going up and the price of food going up, they could ask what else the government could do. It is going to increase taxes on paycheques in January of this coming year. There is no break in sight for Canadians, and the government members will say that it is not a tax.

Let us get real here. If it looks like a tax, sounds like a tax, and Canadians take home less money at the end of the month, then it is a tax. That is exactly what the Liberals are proposing for January 1.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear some excitement coming from those joining us from home. Canadians are rising up. We can hear in the House of Commons that they have had enough. They are at a breaking point with these prices. All the while, the job creators and the makers in our communities, not the takers but the makers, are the small businesses. We hear all the time that they are the backbone of our economy. I could not agree more. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that one in six businesses are considering closing their doors and 62% of small businesses are still carrying debt from the pandemic.

We have this risky situation that the government has created and is perpetrating on Canadians where everything is more expensive. It is more expensive to do business, more expensive to feed one's family and more expensive to get to work. These hard times that have come do not need to be this way. However, following an election that was called in a very cynical move by the Prime Minister to exploit the divisions that had been created, there was a Parliament where a coalition needed to be cooked up so the government could stay in power. Therefore, Canadians are not seeing that real relief.

What does that look like? Seniors are having to delay their retirements. The home ownership we talked about is disappearing because people do not have any time to dream about home ownership. They are too busy trying to come up with the money to pay their $2,600-a-month rent. People are worried.

Conservatives are offering hope for Canadians, which is a big contrast to what they have seen from the government, particularly over the last year. We are going to focus on Canadians' paycheques and make sure they are able to take home that money they worked so hard to earn. We are going to focus on making sure taxes are not going up. It is not very difficult because we know that anyone who does not run a deficit in their home every month has to make choices about what they are able to put in their monthly budget. If we add something, we have to take something away. If the government is going to propose new spending, what is it going to stop doing so that it can afford it and so that Canadians can afford it?

I have heard a very interesting line from the government during the last two years. It is that it has taken on debt so that Canadians do not have to.

I do have some news: That debt is borne by Canadians. They will say interest rates have never been lower, but that is not the case. We now see interest rates that are marching on. It is not free money. Canadians are going to have to pick up the tab for it. We need the government to make sure Canadians can see a light at the end of the tunnel that promises some hope.

We are going to have to scrap the old way the government has been doing things. We are going to have to look at what it is that Canadians really need. They need to heat their homes, feed their families and dream they are going to be able to do better than the generation before them, but that is not what has been put on offer by the government.

Lower taxes are something I hope we can all agree on, as well as making sure that everyone can afford a home, not just spending a lot and calling that a housing plan. I would hope that is something we can all agree on.

We need to address the root cause of what is driving this inflation in Canada so that people are not experiencing this crushing inflation on the cost of their food. Let us say that next year global inflation starts to recede and is at 5%. They are still paying 5% more on the 10% that it went up the year before. It is time to stop the damage that is being done.

We hear often that it is a global phenomenon that they had no control over, but it is cold comfort to people across the country when the Liberals throw their hands up and say, “Well, it's pretty bad everywhere else. We're kind of better than the other guys.” Whether one lives in Victoria-by-the-Sea on Prince Edward Island, Victoria in British Columbia or on Victoria Island in Nunavut, that word salad will not fill bellies. It is getting a lot tougher to do that as food prices continue to march up. They need to see action, not excuses from the government. What is that action going to be? I really hope the plan is not just higher taxes. I really hope the plan is not to borrow more money to dump into a housing plan that is not building more homes. They are driving up the prices.

We are going to focus on Canadians. We are going to focus on their paycheques. We are going to focus on their dreams of home ownership. We are going to focus on their retirement because that is the dream that we all have. That is the dream that people have when they come to this country. We want to keep that dream alive. What the government is proposing today is not help. It is a distraction. It is just more for the government.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a voice. It sounds like a member who is as upset with the government as I am is trying to join in. It seems they could not even afford the gas to come to the House of Commons today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is very experienced. He talks a lot in the House. He should know that we are not to refer to the presence or absence of anybody in the House. Suggesting a member cannot afford to get here in person certainly would, at the very least, indicate that the individual is not here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Thank you very much.

I will say that those of us who have to join in on Zoom should make sure to leave their microphones off unless they are intervening in the discussion at hand.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not seem, even with new made-up parliamentary secretary roles, that they have enough people over there to be able to get everybody together and get them briefed that it is safe for them to come back to work. They can do that.

We will help the member out so he can afford gas. We are going to help Canadians afford more by ending the carbon tax and the paycheque tax. We want to help Canadians, and to give them hope and not fear, which is what the government has been peddling.

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

Mr. Speaker, those were interesting comments, but not so much on the dental benefit, the legislation we are talking about. The member seemed to get carried away in some other areas.

Having said that, maybe I will try to get some clarification for Canadians on the issue of our children. We have a substantial piece of legislation that is going to provide dental care for thousands of children under the age of 12. To be very clear, the Conservative Party of Canada opposes this legislation. It does not support the federal government having a role in providing dental care for children under 12.

Is this the same sort of contrast we see when the Conservative Party also says it does not support child care? Does the current Conservative Party still believe that it is going to trash the national Canada child care program?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we had to wake up the parliamentary secretary to join the debate. He seems to have missed a couple of things.

Conservatives created child care in Canada. He may have heard of the universal child care benefit, which we started. Members will remember that Liberals at the time said that, if we were to give Canadians money, they would blow it on beer and popcorn. We do not believe that. We think that parents should be able to make choices about how they can best care for their children, so we are happy to be able to do that.

We are also very sure, as Conservatives, and again I could perhaps offer to table some information about how things work in Canada for the parliamentary secretary, that health care is a provincial responsibility. The parliamentary secretary can do what he wants to do, or not do, with health care, as the government has been ignoring it. The Prime Minister continues to ignore what the premiers are asking for, and we will certainly not do that. We will respect provincial jurisdiction and work with the premiers to make sure that we take care of the health of all children in this country. We are extremely dedicated to that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask a question, I would like to say that my thoughts are with your constituents and everyone in places like Nova Scotia, the Maritimes, the Magdalen Islands, the Lower North Shore and Newfoundland, who are bracing for hurricane Fiona. I want to express my support as the storm looms, and I hope everyone in your area stays safe.

Earlier, I was listening to my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, and he sounded a lot like a Bloc member speaking English. Much of what he said was exactly what the Bloc has been fighting for for ages: provincial jurisdiction over health care. I found that very interesting. Earlier, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean asked the Leader of the Opposition a question after his lengthy speech. He asked him whether he supported the provincial and Quebec premiers' unanimous demand for an unconditional increase in health transfers to 35%. We could not get an answer out of the Leader of the Opposition.

This despite the fact that my colleague's speech seemed to indicate his strong support for respecting provincial jurisdiction. Was my colleague suggesting that the new Conservative Party intends to increase federal health transfers in response to the demands of Quebec and the provinces?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important because it underscores a problem we have in the federation when the Prime Minister refuses to meet with the first ministers to even discuss health care. Members may think it is brave of me to speak for the leader of His Majesty's official opposition, but I can tell them that he is going to meet with the premiers on health care. We would make sure that provincial jurisdiction were respected because it has been ignored under the Liberals.

Liberals are so confused, in fact, that they are still talking about Stephen Harper. What are Conservatives talking about? We are talking about the future for Canadians, their retirement, their paycheques and hope, and that is what we are going to keep doing. Liberals are stuck in the past.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please.

I am going to stand for a second and just remind everyone of the task at hand, which is debating the bill before us.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not once did my colleague talk about the greedflation that has taken hold in this country. We know in Canada we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7. How is that playing out? We have homeless people and people who cannot get dental care. We see big corporations like grocery stores, the big banks, big oil and big telecom all having record profits. Meanwhile, grocery store prices are going up, as are bank fees, fuel prices and telecom fees.

The member said that these are hard times and that it does not need to be this way. I agree. The Conservatives in Britain had the courage to charge their big oil companies a 25% excess tax on oil and gas profits. Where is the courage for these Conservatives? Where is the consciousness, because it is unconscionable that people cannot get dental care yet we have greedflation. The gatekeepers are truly the Conservatives standing up for these big corporations. It is 1% of the families in this country who hold 25% of the wealth. Meanwhile, 40% of families only hold 1.1% of the wealth. This is unacceptable, and it does not need to be this way.

When will the member deal with the greedflation that has taken a grip on this country?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take this question from the hon. member because he asked about courage. I am going to show that courage right now to him and to all Canadians. We are going to stand up against and we are going to call out the partners in crime who are pickpocketing Canadians, who are perpetrating greedflation, because as—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled before I even make my point of order.

The member just said “partners in crime”. Is he suggesting that the Liberal government and the Liberal bench is participating in criminal activity, and to that extent, is the NDP partnering on that crime? That is extremely offensive, and the member should remove that comment immediately.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had very interesting conversations in here today about people using turns of phrase. I find it interesting—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is debate.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is on this point of order. I had not even finished my comment, so I am not sure if the member has a guilty conscience, but I did not accuse the Liberals of committing a crime.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

He referred to the NDP as “partners in crime”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I have not recognized the member.

Now, I will recognize the member, but I will also say let us keep the tone down for a few moments while we look at this point of order.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to the NDP as “partners in crime”. In doing so, he is suggesting the Liberal bench, the government and the Liberal members of Parliament, are engaging in criminal activity. He is also extending that to suggest the NDP are partnering in that criminal activity.

I suggested to you moments ago that you make the suggestion to the member to remove that comment. You asked him if he wanted to do that. Instead, he doubled down on it. I would suggest you ask him once again—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I did not have the opportunity to say anything because I recognized the member on the same point of order.

I will suggest to the member to maybe retract that and find another line of phrase. Trying to suggest we are in the pockets of others is probably not correct.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni is rising on the same point of order. I do not want this to go on forever.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, what is truly criminal is that these big corporations are hoarding all the profits while people—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have really descended way too far into debate, and I apologize to the House for letting this happen.

I will ask the member to stand and maybe retract the words. I know, they all said the same thing. Everybody is saying the same thing, so I am going to ask the member to maybe rephrase it and answer the question appropriately, because we are still in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has the floor.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the greedflation Canadians are experiencing is from the Liberal government harvesting money from Canadians, on the backs of hard-working Canadians, with higher taxes. Its coalition partners, its partners in collection, are punishing Canadians.

If they want to give Canadians a break, if they really want to deal with greedflation, they could cut taxes. Canadians would keep more money in their pockets and the amount of wealth in this country would increase for people other than the government and its partners in collection.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak today on Bill C-31, so I want to put on the record that I support it and wish it would go further.

I want to ask my hon. colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes this. He made the claim that health care is provincial. I wonder if he is familiar with the 1982 case, Schneider v. The Queen, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that our Constitution does not say that health care is provincial. It does not speak to health care and it is one of those areas of mixed jurisdiction, federal and provincial. The criminal law power, which is federal, is the source and the derivation of many federal law and federal government decisions to protect our health.

Lastly, the Canada Health Act is the federal statute that governs our universal single-payer health care system, which we must fight to the death to protect, because without it a lot of people will die.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot going on there. What I will say is this. The current government is not collaborating with the premiers. It is not collaborating with the provinces. It is not delivering on a dental care program. What it is doing is fuelling inflation, failing to own up to the mistakes it has made and failing to address the consequences of inflation that are crushing Canadians every single day and making food unaffordable.

People having to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families is unacceptable. Canadians deserve better. It is time for the government to cut taxes, to cap its spending and, frankly, to deal in hope instead of the division and anger we saw from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.

I am honoured to be here today to speak to Bill C-31. This bill means a lot to the community that I represent, and I know that it means a lot to many members in this House.

I grew up in a community where many people struggled to pay the bills. This is not a new phenomenon in my community, but something that occurs all the time. In my constituency, we see people who drive Uber and who check out groceries. I have had many conversations with people in my community, and I know from them that people are struggling.

In my neighbourhood, there are people who struggle with vacancy decontrol and landlords who want them to leave so they can bring new people in and raise the rent. My constituents are also very concerned with home ownership. It is a very important issue to people in my community.

However, make no mistake: The people of Don Valley East and the people in my neighbourhood where I grew up are hard-working people, and they believe in the Canadian value that we are so much better when we actually work together as Canadians, when we stick together. It is part of our value set as Canadians. They are also very thankful for the type of country we have where, if one works hard, hard work can pay off, where we have great quality schools and a strong health care system, and where one can speak freely about issues and live the way one wants to live.

Speaking on Bill C-31, I was a bit offended by what I heard from the opposition. I want to remind people back home in Don Valley East and people in this House that we are talking about a dental plan for children under 12. We are talking about a $500 subsidy to help people pay the rent. That is what we are talking about, and with what we are hearing from the opposition about all of these different issues, I want to bring it down to this one point. What we will vote on with Bill C-31 is whether we, as members of this House, should come together to put in place a program to support children when it comes to dental care.

Should we put in $500 to help people? I have heard a few people say that $500 dollars will not do a lot. I can tell members that in my community, $500 goes a long way when it comes to paying for groceries, bills and helping with household income. It is a huge amount.

I have been here for a year, but I have watched this government over the last several years govern, and from the very beginning, back in 2015, addressing affordability and making life easier for Canadians has always been part of the mantra of the government. It is why my riding of Don Valley East has supported the government since 2015, because we are feeling the high prices of gas, the cost of living and the cost of groceries.

In fact, recently I did a survey in my community, and I was pretty surprised. It is the first survey I did, and I sent it out to everyone in the community. We got about 5% people who sent the survey back or went online to fill it out, so we had about 1,800 actually fill it out. However, 44% of the respondents said that affordability was one of the top three issues that they faced as constituents, and over 70% said that they had experienced some form of affordability issues over the last year. To me, this is very telling of where we are as Canadians today.

We have gone through so much with COVID over the last three years, with the global economy and now the war in Ukraine. Everything has shifted in this country, and things have become a lot more challenging for Canadians to purchase.

I do the grocery shopping in my house for my family and also for one of my family members who cannot go to the grocery store. I do it every week for that particular family member and my family. I have noticed the price of flour, baked goods and other things go up, as we all have. However, the opposition will point fingers at this government and say, “You are responsible for the price of these baked goods that have gone up.” Despite popular belief from that side of the House, we are not baking cakes and bread or growing grain or wheat on this side of the House. We are putting in place measures to help people take on some of these challenges that have been impacted by global affairs.

We know that when COVID hit, there was a huge shock to our system and to the economy in this country. We lost three million jobs in Canada. There was a 17% decline in our economic output. Our GDP fell by 2.1%, and even the exchange in Toronto fell by 37%. These were huge numbers. The system was disrupted and we lost a trillion dollars from those markets.

When we look at the war in Ukraine today, we know that prior to the war, 10% of all global wheat supply came from that region. We also know that 15% of corn came from that region, as did 15% of world barley production. Eighty per cent of sunflower oil came from that region too. When we see the cost of baked goods, the cost of wheat and the cost of products in grocery stores going up, there are many different factors in place.

The question in the House really is, where do we go from here? What do we do? How do we respond to it?

There are two approaches that are emerging in the House, one from the opposition and one from the government. As I said, the approach by the government has been here for the last seven years, and it is about looking for ways to create more opportunity and invest in people. The members opposite vote down bills like this that would directly support a child of 12 years old or under. To me, it is quite remarkable.

I want to go back to Bill C-31 just for a minute because Canadians need to know that when members of the official opposition have an opportunity to vote on this bill, they will have the opportunity to support a bill that would allow young people under 12 to have basic dental care and that would put $500 more in the hands of Canadians who need it to pay bills and pay rent. The Conservatives are going to have a very clear option, and the vote that will eventually come to the House will really define the two approaches the opposition and the government have. They are two opposing approaches to how we look forward and build a stronger country to support all people in this great nation of ours.

This bill would provide $500 to nearly two million low-income renters in this country and would provide $1,300 over two years to 500,000 children. This is a huge step in the right direction for this government and for those who support this bill.

When this government came into power back in 2015, it took many steps to look for ways to create more opportunity for Canadians. It lowered taxes for the middle class. It increased the Canada child benefit. It helped seniors by increasing old age security. Remember, the previous government, at one of those critical decision points that define governments or define parties, raised the eligibility for old age security to age 67 rather than its current age of 65. Of course, the best example I could give is what has taken place over the last year with the introduction of $10-a-day child care.

At the end of the day, we are investing in children and investing in families. We are looking for ways to strengthen opportunity for Canadians. We are looking for ways to better position Canada so it can continue to have a trajectory that provides a bright future for all Canadians. I am very proud, on behalf of the residents of Don Valley East, to stand in the House to fight for children and make the right decision to support kids who need help and families that need help during these difficult times.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully to my hon. friend, there seems to be a bit of a confused sense of who is responsible for what. He says the federal government does not impact the price of gas or groceries and does not prepare cakes; it is not the one making and setting the price for this. This seems to ignore the fact that the federal government is responsible for fiscal policies and, indirectly, for monetary policy that clearly shapes the price of goods.

Let us talk about a more direct case of responsibility, that is, the price of gas. The government has what the finance minister calls the carbon pricing scheme, or what we call the carbon tax scheme, perhaps. She has said, and it has been said by other members, that this exists to raise the price of gas. That is the whole logic behind those who defend this policy. They say that we need to raise the price of gas because, allegedly, that is going to be good for the environment. However, the government could make a simple choice and not raise taxes on gas.

Will the member acknowledge that the price of gas, if nothing else, is actually something the government has a significant impact on and support our proposal to have no new taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about our responsibility. We do have a responsibility in the House. The question that will be posed to members of this legislature, to members of the House, is whether to invest in young people.

I throw the question back to the member. Will he be supporting children here in Canada and in his home province to make sure they have very simple dental care? Will he take on the responsibility that his constituents sent him here to the House for and represent their interests? Will he actually end up supporting a bill that supports kids who are 12 and under? It is a very simple question.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I wonder if he could clarify something for me.

I am concerned because Quebec already has a program that covers a good portion of dental costs for children under 10. Quebec taxpayers are accustomed to their tax dollars being used for this. I cannot even guarantee that it will be used only for dental care. Someone can submit a receipt for $100 but get $650 back and do whatever they want with the other $550. This is not a dental insurance program; it is throwing money out the window. Besides that, I also want to know whether the government has thought about how it plans to compensate Quebec taxpayers, who pay for their own dental care and who will pay for that of other provinces.

Why is the money not being transferred to the governments that have the jurisdiction to do this, that is, the 10 provinces?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the House and the federation we have created as Canadians are sometimes complex. I am learning, after spending almost a year here, that it is a very complex House and there is a very complex relationship between the provinces and the federal government. However, I do know that the $10-a-day child care initiative, which I believe created 37,000 new spaces in Quebec, is a big win for Quebec and a big win for Canadians.

We need to continue to look for ways to make investments and work out those details to ensure that they are in the best interests of Quebec and the best interests of the Province of Ontario and the rest of our partners across the country.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke eloquently about how dental care is going to make a huge difference for families. As he looks around at his Liberal colleagues, I note that most of them voted against dental care just a year ago.

I am curious if he could put himself back to a year ago. Families were struggling. Families needed dental care. Would he have voted with his Liberal colleagues against dental care then?

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

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about the House is that we have the ability to work together. It does not matter what party we are from. It does not matter what part of the country we are from. We have the ability to work together. I am very proud of the relationship we have been able to build in the House so that like-minded people can come together to actually get something done.

I think it is a huge accomplishment that we were able to introduce Bill C-31, which would actually, at the end of the day, make lives better for Canadians, especially for children under 12. I am very proud to support this bill.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be back, glad to see you back in the chair here in the House and glad that we are getting on with the work that is important for all our constituents and for our country.

I want to speak to Bill C-31. Just in case viewers have lost track given previous speakers, what we are actually focusing on in Bill C-31 is part 1, the dental benefit act, which would provide interim dental benefits for many low-income families. Part 2 of Bill C-31 would enact the rental housing benefit act, which proposes a $500 one-time payment to eligible families with net incomes of under $35,000. Part 2 would empower the CRA to process the applications and payments for a one-time top-up payment of $500.

Bill C-31 is the beginning of a program for those most vulnerable, and it is our children under 12 who are going to benefit from that particular program. I would ask members to take a moment to think about when we were all in school. There were children who had significant dental problems. They were often bullied, abused and picked on. If this followed them through much of their lives and they continued to not be able to afford dental care, getting to high school and then the workplace and still not having the money required for the dental care they needed, what was that doing to their self-esteem and self-confidence as they tried to move along?

I would suggest that dental care is far more important than a lot of us might pay attention to. It is why I am so happy today to stand in support of Bill C-31. It is going to start us down a pathway of providing dental care to children under 12 of low-income families. This is the beginning of a new program that I think will clearly benefit all of Canada.

When we look at having to compete in the overall world, we need to be presentable. When we look at some of the homeless folks we see living on the streets, we notice one thing: They are all very badly in need of dental care. How long has that been? Have they been in that situation for many years? Is that part of what destroyed their self-confidence and self-esteem so that at one point or another in their life they are living on the streets?

Trying to tie it back, I think dental care is extremely important, and I am glad to stand today to support it along with the top-up on rental housing. As I said, when we think of dental care, we think about health and we think about finances, but dental care issues reach far beyond those two basic essentials. It is therefore of the utmost importance.

Let us think about it for a second. As I mentioned earlier, a person's healthy smile means healthy digestion, a healthy heart, healthy lungs and other respiratory organs and good overall health, because all of this is affected by bacteria in our mouths. Some of us may not realize that dental inflammation is a high risk for the brain for one simple physical reason: It is all located in the head.

Even more so, one's healthy smile is a social indicator that may affect the perception of our personality by other people. It is an indicator of one's well-being, which affects one's confidence and thus performance. If we talk to some of the folks who are struggling in our shelters and ask them what their life was like, clearly many of them do not have the confidence to go looking for a job, partially because of their appearance. Again, this goes back to their dental health.

However, given all of dental health's importance, it is not widely accessible. People are hesitant to address their dental health issues because it is expensive. For some it can be frightening as well. For many of the single-parent families that I represent and some of the low-income families, talking about going to the dentist is out of the question. They do not have any coverage whatsoever. To have to go to the dentist and put out $500 or $400 is just not possible for them. That is the kind of thing that gets put off, and eventually they have to deal with it but it could be much later on. It is about not having the resources.

As we move forward in our talks on dental care, I would hope we look at what the costs are in dental care. It is extremely expensive to go to dental school and become a dentist. We need to look at all avenues if we are going to try to improve the self-confidence of Canadians, avenues such as being able to become a dentist without having to mortgage one's house and whole future. It is very reflective in the prices that are paid and that is what prevents a lot of people from being able to access the help they need.

When we talk specifically about children's dental health, those limitations apply even more. For parents, especially in a tough financial situations, it is very difficult to convince themselves and their kids to go without groceries for a week because they have to go to the dentist.

A third of Canadians do not have dental insurance. In 2018, more than one in five Canadians reported avoiding dental care because of the cost. I do not think that is an unusual thing. An awful lot of people avoid going to the dentist until they are in severe pain. They certainly are not going for the average six-month check up and the kinds of regular things they should be doing. They go when they have no other choice than to get some assistance.

Our job, as representatives of all these families in Parliament, is to help the parents who struggle financially by investing in their children's health care to ensure we have done everything possible to help these kids grow up into healthy, socially active, confident and productive adults, future parents themselves.

With Bill C-31, our government makes a first step, or maybe I should say a leap, in ensuring an essential aspect of Canada's health care, namely dental care, is more accessible for those who need it. This support program would start with children under 12 in the period starting in October 2022 and ending in June 2024. The support would be allocated to uninsured families with an annual income of less than $90,000.

The list of reasons why dental health is important can be very long, but it always comes down to one thing: one's well-being. Well-being or happiness is a fuel for everything good we wish for our country: healthy families, active communities, a blooming economy and all other important things about which we care.

When we are talking about health care and child care, we have things that are necessary for a healthy Canadian society. I introduced a bill for first reading, which is coming up for second reading, Bill C-284. It calls for a national eye strategy. Apparently 75% of the blindness happening in Canada could be eliminated by more investments and more research. That bill will be coming up for second reading in November. It is about the health of Canadians overall. We can save money in a lot of different ways by ensuring we are making investments early on.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we go to questions and comments, I want to remind everybody that as they start to come in, the sound level tends to go up. Also, for those who are often in the lobbies, please ensure to keep the tone down, because the noise does bleed into the chamber. We forget what it is like when all members of Parliament are actually in the chamber.

Questions and comments; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the government member who just spoke. The government talks often about how much money it is giving to people, saying that it is going to give them more money here and more money there.

Does the government appreciate that it does not generate its own money? The money it gives away, it takes from either present people or from future generations. In fact, the government is doing that now with its planned scheduled tax increases on January 1 and April 1 of next year.

First, does the government acknowledge that any money it spends has to come from citizens or future generations? Second, does the member agree that now is not the time to be raising taxes?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's question. It is good to see him on the floor again. We have gone back and forth between us on a variety of issues.

I believe in investing Canadians. All our money does not come out of mid air. It comes from Canadians. It comes from each and every one of us. It is what we do with that money that matters. Investing in Canadians and giving them back the very money they have given to us in programs like eye care and health care, and investing in the right businesses that will grow the economy, all of those are important things that we have a responsibility to do to ensure that Canada continues to move forward. Money only comes from one place, and that is from each and every one of us.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to hear the Liberal member's speech. The Liberals have finally seen the light: the importance of a national dental care program, something they did not see when they voted with the Conservatives against the motion that the NDP put forward just a year ago.

With that being said, we are looking forward to getting this program delivered for the people who need dental care services.

The member also talked about housing. Part of the problem with the housing crisis is the fact that the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program back in 1993, and the Liberals and Conservatives since that time have done nothing to address the financialization of housing, where REITs and corporate landlords are treating housing like it is a stock market.

Does the member agree that action needs to be taken now to stop the financialization of housing, so we can ensure people who need affordable housing will be able to access it?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to bring the temperature down a bit. We are here to debate and to discuss, but I do not want anyone to have a heart attack in the sense of trying to get a point across. The issue of housing—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked legitimate questions of the member and for her to insinuate that the tone I am using is somehow going to cause me to have a heart attack is deplorable. It is patronizing and it is unacceptable. I would ask for an apology.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the point of order. I would ask the member for Humber River—Black Creek to maybe retract and rephrase.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely did not mean to offend the hon. member. I know her passion when she speaks in the House, and I quite often applaud it and agree with many of the comments. However, I am very proud of what our government has done when it comes to housing. We have invested billions and billions of dollars across Canada with our rapid housing initiative, but all these things take time. They do not just materialize overnight.

I was told recently that a house that used to take eight months to build now takes 22 months to build. We cannot create them in mid-air, but the funds are there. It is happening all the way across the country, and I look forward to seeing some of those housing developments in the riding of my hon. colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting. Yesterday, we were debating supports for people with disabilities. It is historic legislation. Today, we are again bringing legislation that would be there to help people. Children under the age of 12 would be able to receive benefits, which would be a significant achievement.

Could my colleague provide her thoughts on why it is so important that we have a government that truly cares and delivers for people in real way?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his continued work in the House on behalf of all Canadians.

The whole issue of investing in people is an important part. We are investing in Canadians; we are not investing somewhere else. We are reinvesting tax dollars to help people have a better quality of life. When I think of the $10-a-day child care and why I am a huge supporter of that program, it is the fact that hundreds of single mothers have told me they cannot go anywhere or get an education because they cannot afford child care. Now their children are in child care and they are in school or getting jobs. They will not end up as seniors in poverty, because of having had access to these programs.

The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

This summer, I spoke with thousands of constituents from Kelowna—Lake Country in person, over the phone, on their doorsteps and at community events. I met with small businesses, farmers and not-for-profits. The struggles I heard from people and small businesses are real and extensive.

I heard about the unmanageable cost of living, which includes costs on housing, fuel and food, overall inflation, labour shortages, travel restrictions such as the ArriveCAN app, ongoing federal mandates, crushing debt for small business, supply chain issues, and delays in every federal government department, whether it be immigration and citizenship, CRA, benefits or passports.

It is evident that the legislation before us, Bill C-31, does nothing to address any of those issues and nothing to address the cost of 40-year-high inflation. For the Liberals to introduce this thrown-together legislation that will only boost inflation, and which will see its benefits evaporate with the ever-rising cost of food and gas, demonstrates the government's detachment from working families, small businesses and seniors.

I remember as a kid those tough times 40 years ago at the end of the last Trudeau government. History is repeating itself. I remember eating lots of wieners, white bread and Spam. What got us through were two sets of grandparents who had big gardens. Families are suffering today.

I mailed out a survey to residents of Kelowna—Lake Country to get their feedback about the cost of groceries and gas prices. I received thousands of responses. Food costs can vary regionally, and most people said their food bills had actually gone up more than 20%. To fill their vehicles was over $50 more per fill than last year.

Many people gave specific examples of their personal situations. I will give just a small sampling. John, who needs his pickup truck for work and who says he has good mileage on his truck, will be paying $513 a month more for gas than last year. Jeff in Lake Country wrote to me that he is getting close to having to choose between gas or food, saying that is “not a good spot to be in.”

Lea in Kelowna says she is forced to go to food banks for the first time in her life. Ken wrote that his family is presently helping a person who is living in his car because he cannot afford rent. This person works as a delivery driver, but gas prices may now prevent him from working entirely.

Paulette wrote to me and said, “I am a recently retired as a nurse. I am pretty tight with my budget. I have been able to keep my bank account at the same float number. Since March of this year, I have noticed incremental decline in my bank balance to the tune of $400 a month. It doesn't take long on a fixed income to be alarmed in seeing consistent decline.”

How is a retiree like Paulette supposed to deal with a $400 loss each month? How is a new family or a young worker supposed to deal with it? They will not if we maintain the government's high-spend, high-cost NDP-Liberal approach. We need to stop the money printing, stop the spending and stop increasing taxes, all of which are creating inflation.

Legislation like Bill C-31 will not reverse the ever-increasing costs of our basic necessities. While the government says this legislation will tackle the real issues of Canadians in need of relief, the value of these supports on people's budgets will rapidly proceed to nothing. They will evaporate quickly if the government does nothing to rein in its own costs.

Conservatives have been talking about precisely where the government could reduce costs, which would directly help to reduce the inflation that is shredding the value of people's paycheques and household budgets. It could cancel its $35-billion Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has yet to build a single road, bridge or rail line. It could drop the ArriveCAN app entirely today. It could save $25 million right now and scrap what I call the “ArriveCAN'T” app.

The government could use a one-for-one rule: For every dollar spent, find a dollar in savings. It could cancel all planned tax increases, including payroll tax hikes scheduled for January 1 and tax hikes on groceries, gas and home heating scheduled for April 1. It could cancel the escalator excise tax, which is also scheduled for April 1.

Leaving those scheduled increases on the books will be catastrophic to Canadian and small business bank accounts. Let us change course today. The NDP-Liberal bill would only raise Canadian costs, and this is obvious.

Economists are in agreement on this as well. Robert Kavcic, senior economist at the Bank of Montreal, was quoted recently on the government's proposal as saying, “We all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently…inflationary.”

Andrey Pavlov at Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business said, “If we have high inflation and that inflation continues, that assistance isn’t going to do very much to help anyone, including the recipients of that assistance. It’s just not going to be enough.”

Derek Holt, vice president and head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank, could not have been clearer: “Any belief that the government's proposals will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

Let us not forget that this legislation is before us only because of the summer rush that the members of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition put on themselves, once again trying to make a parliamentary body of law-making into a short-order kitchen of quick fixes.

The legislation bears all the hallmarks of a bill not thoroughly thought through. If the government members even took the time to glance at most rental listings in British Columbia, they would know that a $500 cheque would represent not much more than a single week's worth of rent.

According to rentals.ca, British Columbia had the highest average rental rate, at $2,578 per month in August 2022. Even if the bill passes, six out of every 10 renters will not qualify for it. In Kelowna—Lake Country, the government's record on rent is clear. According to the CMHC, the average one-bedroom apartment was roughly $900 a month in 2015, when this government was elected. Fast-forward to 2022 and the rental prices have increased 61%, to $1,475.

Instead of a bill that would expand the rental market or offer my constituents an affordable path to home ownership, the government chooses to raise costs even further.

For the government to call the other half of this legislation a dental program is not quite accurate. A program would typically feature an application process. It might coordinate with many provincial, low-income dental care programs. It would actually be a program. Instead, what the government offers is an attestation.

We have seen this attestation process with no verification or cross-referencing before. We have not been told how the CRA will administer this program or what extra staff they will need to administer it. All the government has said is to remember to keep one's dental receipts.

Will people be subject to having the value of this benefit clawed back if the government or the CRA deems them not applicable? My constituency office was inundated with people being told they had to pay back CERB. The government just has not learned.

Once again, the Liberal-NDP coalition is clear on how it wants the government to run: Allow inflation to rise unchecked, take more from Canadians' pockets, circulate it through the government's bureaucracy, and then write cheques that will give only a fraction of it back. It is like a family's financial situation is a sinking boat, and the Liberals throw them a teacup to bail out the boat instead of patching the holes.

We need to put people first.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Conservatives and the Bloc do not recognize that this legislation is going to enable children under the age of 12 to get the dental work that is absolutely necessary. Many children are not getting dental work because of the issue of affordability. Many of those children end up going into hospitals at great cost because they did not get the dental work that is required. Now, we have a government that is recognizing the importance of getting the job done in serving our young children in Canada.

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of children who are going to be eligible, in every region of our country, yet the Conservatives feel that the federal government plays no role.

Why is the member not standing up for the children whom she represents who do not have dental insurance?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the better question is this: Why can people not afford to spend money on certain things? The reason is that their paycheques are evaporating. The reason is that we have 40-year high inflation, which means people cannot even afford to buy food, they cannot buy medicine, and they cannot put gas in their vehicles. It is the policies of the government that are leaving people short every month. I gave several examples in my statement today. People are hurting because of the policies of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, when our Conservative friends talk about the housing crisis, it seems as though they are always just opposing any measure the Liberal government proposes without bringing many solutions to the table.

I met an economist from the CMHC at a housing summit in Laval last week, and he said that, if we do not do something to change things, only 500,000 housing units will be built in Quebec over the next 10 years when, in fact, 1,100,000 units are needed to deal with the accessibility and affordability crisis. That is how many housing units we need to build in Quebec over the next 10 years to truly address this crisis.

What does the Conservative Party suggest we do to resolve this crisis?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have given a number of suggestions. One suggestion is that we have a lot of federal buildings that are empty, and we could use those to build housing. We have a capacity problem. We have one of the lowest numbers of houses in the world when we look at it percentage-wise. We absolutely need to build more supply.

The other part is that costs are going up. When we have supply chain issues and when we have inflation the way it is, it makes it a lot more difficult for construction and for builders to build affordable housing. If we do not get this inflation crisis under control, it is not going to help with the affordability of building houses either.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine, Ted, is a senior. He lost his teeth. He cannot get dental care coverage. I raised this in the House and someone from the member's party suggested that Ted should go back to work. He is 77. He should not have to go back to work to get his teeth fixed, and he should not have to eat soup all the time.

The member talked about payroll taxes. CPP is not a tax. It is retirement income; it is deferred wages. It is critical. We are hearing from seniors who have not saved. They need help with dental care. They need to make sure they can retire with more income.

Conservative premiers, and premiers right across this country, worked out a deal with the government to increase CPP, and that is for both workers' contributions and those of their employers, so that seniors can have enough money to get the things they need.

Does my colleague not agree that investments in CPP are deferred wages and are meant for retirement income? They are not payroll taxes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will address the comments the member made about the senior in his riding. I hear stories like that as well. Seniors are among some of the hardest hit, because they are on fixed incomes. As this inflation continues to be at record levels, they, as I mentioned in my intervention with examples, are some of the hardest hit, because they are not able to have more income. That is the first thing.

The second thing, regarding people's paycheques, is that what the CPP and EI increases will do is reduce the paycheques they are taking home. It is also going to be more costly for businesses. A time like this, when we have record-breaking inflation, is not the time to be increasing any costs on people.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her eloquent speech and articulate thoughts in the House this morning. She is exactly right.

The government is proposing to be the solution, but it is actually the problem. The problem can never be the solution. We are witnessing, coming out of COVID, the massive inflation-induced problems that Canadians are facing, making their paycheques shorter. There is more month now left than there is money on those paycheques. Canadians are struggling.

I am not talking about Canadians who have always or have typically struggled. I am talking about Canadians who just a few short years ago did not need the government to do anything at all for them. They were business owners. They were working in the private sector. They had the ability to earn a living and make their paycheques cover their cost of living, pay for their homes, pay for their energy, pay for their food, raise their children, put them through school and even save enough for their retirements.

These are Canadians who just want their government to provide them with the services only it can provide and get out of their way. This is the mentality of the people I represent in the constituency of Red Deer—Lacombe. This is why Alberta, my home province, is one of the lowest-taxed jurisdictions and one of the provinces in this Confederation that creates wealth in abundance, or at least it used to create wealth in abundance, for everybody to share in.

The problem is the philosophy of the current government. In its rush to make everybody equal, it is making everybody equally miserable. This is the problem with the philosophy of the socialist-bent NDP-Liberal coalition. It does not work. History has shown us throughout time that this kind of thinking only leads to everybody being worse off.

This bill specifically talks about rent and the dental program. The reason the government believes it needs to bring these things forward at this time is that my constituents who used to be able to pay for these things on their own, who used to have jobs where their employer made those payments or had a dental care plan, no longer find themselves in that calibre of employment anymore. That is because of the ideology of the current government across the way and its ideological attack on energy.

I want Canadians at home to realize that, if they take a look around their home, everything they have was either made from, brought to them by or manufactured with energy. When we attack that energy with things like a carbon tax, it underpins everything we do in our economy. The government's hell-bent position from the very first press release it issued was to rework the northern gateway and energy east pipelines and basically cancel those projects. The short-sightedness for cheap political gain of critical energy supplies, not only within Canada but around the world, is showing itself today.

The Chancellor of Germany was just here and our government was too dim-witted to even know that he came here asking for help in the way he could without embarrassing himself in front of his own people. What did our government say in response to our friend, our NATO ally and our economic trading partner? It basically gave him the bum's rush out of town and said we would have some renewables for him in three to five years. Meanwhile, the good people, our friends, our western liberal democracy philosophical allies are going to be left in the dark by the current government, which cannot see past the end of its nose in its ideological crusade against oil and natural gas. I think 14 to 18 LNG proposals were cancelled, shelved or tabled because of the current government. That is the legacy we have.

I want to get back to how that is relevant to the citizens of my province and the citizens I represent in the constituency of Red Deer—Lacombe. Central Alberta is a hub of the service industry of the oil and gas sector in Alberta. We have numerous pipeline companies, service rig companies, drilling rig companies. We even have, hopefully, a formerly Russian oligarch-owned steel pipe company that was providing services to the oil and gas sector. These were good-paying jobs.

I have good friends who have had multi-million dollar businesses. The way to get rid of a $10-million trucking company in Alberta is to vote Liberal and just wait a couple years. There is nothing left at the end of it. That is exactly the story, sadly, of some good friends of mine back in central Alberta. That is the misery that has been inflicted on the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Albertans who are victims of this policy.

Now the good people of Germany and the rest of the free world are being held hostage by dictator energy in places like Germany, Ukraine and Poland. These are our friends, and they are being held hostage by the ruinous imperialism of Vladimir Putin right now. They are being held economically hostage. Putin has used energy as a weapon.

We could be energy independent. We do not need to import a single drop of gas or oil into this country. As a matter of fact, we have the third-largest proven reserves of oil in the world, and we have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under every province and territory in this country. We could be supplying our friends, neighbours, allies and like-minded citizens in liberal democracies. That is small-l liberal democracies, because today's Liberals are not liberals. We could be providing that energy, relief and security to our friends.

The reason my constituents do not have the buying power they used to have, the reason my constituents are now in the same boat that many other Canadians find themselves in is that they do not have the security of that job they used to have, that well-paying energy sector job, a job with a company that actually could provide a benefits plan for them. I watched it happen. It has been absolutely disastrous and absolutely ruinous.

The problem I go back to is the philosophical bent of the government, which cannot see past the end of its nose. We can look at the pipeline policies and the unfair application of these things. For example, the upstream and downstream emissions on oil and gas that is produced in Canada are not applied to oil that is imported into Canada. Why the double standard?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a bill about dental care for children under the age of 12. The member has spoken about just about everything under the sun except dental care. I am wondering if he could be encouraged to get back to the topic of discussion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the point of order. I would ask the member to maybe try to tie it in because there is two minutes and 35 seconds left.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my next-door neighbour back home is a dentist, and he noticed a sharp decline in his business shortly after the Liberal government took office, because nobody had the money they used to have in their pockets because of the policies of the government. That is the whole point. I know the members are cheering for that loudly over there—

[An hon. member]

That is from your side.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

—because Liberals actually do not care about Canadians who do not vote for them. That is the issue.

I would be happy to bring in all of my friends who happen to be dentists to talk about the decline in business once the oil and gas sector workers no longer had any disposable income. This is the problem, and I will get to it.

When a family is spending all of its money and the people who used to be able to easily provide for their families no longer have the resources they need, that is what puts them into this situation, that is what makes them desperate and dependent on government. That is actually what the Liberal government wants. I will go back to a great quote from Ronald Reagan, the former president of the United States, who once famously said, “Government does not solve problems. It subsidizes them.”

That is exactly what is happening with this piece of legislation. What is a $500 rent cheque going to do for somebody in Toronto or Vancouver who is now paying $2,300 to $2,600 a month for rent? The government is proposing to solve their housing problem by giving them one week's worth of rent while adding billions of dollars of debt onto our already massive national debt. This is not going to work. Economists are almost unanimous across this country in suggesting that any more spending by the government is surely to cause upward pressure on inflation and exacerbate the problem that we currently have.

The current government is not a solution-provider. The current government is problem-maker. There are more people in trouble in this country today than there have been in the entire time I have been here. They are in more trouble than they have been in 40 years with the inflationary pressure that we have. Interest rates are going up. Now people who borrowed money and the businesses that borrowed money during the pandemic have upward pressure on the loans they need to pay back. The pinch and squeeze is terrible for the people of this country. The problem is the government. It is not the solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will ask the member a question about his speech because he did not talk about dental care. I do want to make it relevant to his speech.

The member talked about a price on pollution. The reality of the situation is that 14 out of the 31 OECD countries have some form of price on pollution. I understand that Conservatives are against it now, but I would remind the member that when he ran in the 2021 election under the leader from Durham, he was in favour of pricing pollution. However, I guess now the Conservatives are not.

Could the member inform the House how the Conservatives plan, if they are elected, to tackle the rising carbon emissions and properly bring in measures to fight pollution, as we should as a society. I am assuming that he would agree with that. What is the Conservatives' plan today? I know what it was in 2021 when he ran in the last election, but what is it today?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague across the way who asked that question that Conservatives have always been environmental stewards. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney is one of the greatest environmental stewards we have ever had sitting in the Prime Minister's chair. He has been awarded for this and Conservatives have always put forward a plan on the environment.

However, the issue right now, and where the current government is an outlier, is that virtually every other country that the member just listed in the OECD is reducing taxes and cutting spending to get this inflation under control. These guys are always late to the game. Just look at the border measures. Just look at everything the Liberals are doing when it comes to getting past the COVID restrictions. These guys would not know a good idea if it bit them.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe for his speech. He and the speaker before him talked about the importance of cutting spending to fight inflation. If we want to cut spending, then I would suggest that we cut the subsidies being given to oil companies that are making record profits in the current crisis.

The Conservatives would never dream of cutting oil subsidies, but they do not want to provide rental assistance.

I would simply like to know why oil companies, which are already rich and making profits, deserve help more than someone who cannot afford to pay their rent.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is spoken like a member of Parliament from an area that does not have energy workers in it. I represent a part of the country that actually has a large number, or at least used to have a large number, of energy workers. I know, for example, that the GDP alone of Fort McMurray is almost 6% of the national GDP. All of the businesses that operate there, the subcontractors that operate there and the employees who work for those companies all pay taxes into the general revenue of this country, which is distributed across the country, particularly to places like the Province of Quebec. I would appreciate a thanks instead of the rhetoric I just heard.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since COVID, our 25-member NDP caucus has pushed hard to increase the CERB and the wage subsidy from 10% to 75%. We pushed for a commercial rent assistance program and for paid sick leave, which are all things that protected jobs and saved businesses through COVID. Now we are proposing the doubling of the GST credit, increasing the housing benefit, dental care for children and seniors who cannot afford it and an excess profit tax on banks.

With respect to the member's caucus, the Conservative caucus of 118 members, I cannot think of a single thing it has brought forward to help people through these most difficult times. Does the member support any of these new ideas that we are bringing forward to help Canadians in these difficult times?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, another quote that I would like to leave with this House comes from Winston Churchill. He said, “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy”, and that its inherent virtue is “the equal sharing of misery.”

Canadians do not need a rent subsidy; they need a place to rent. Our plan is to actually convert government buildings that are underutilized right now into accommodations so that people have a home. That is the approach they need to take. They need to cut taxes and put people back in charge of their lives so that they can take care of themselves and not be dependent on a government program or a government plan. Most Canadians have the ability to work for themselves and pay their own bills. All that Canadians are asking is that the government get out of their way. The NDP, by propping up the tired Liberal government, is the problem. It is not the solution.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we proceed to the next speaker, I want to ask, on my behalf, anyone who knows somebody from Nova Scotia, because of the storm that is coming up in the next couple of days, to give them a call, see how they are doing and make sure everything is okay. Please do reach out to friends in Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Newfoundland and a bit of Quebec who might be feeling the effects of Fiona over the next few days.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Whitby.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-31. Before I begin, I want to let members know I will be sharing my time with the member for London—Fanshawe.

I must say that I was entertained by the previous speaker, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. I think he brought some great rhetoric to the House that was quite entertaining, although there was not much substance. If we search for a grain of truth in what he was saying, I think we would be hard pressed to find much.

I talk to my constituents every week and really try to connect with them and listen to what their concerns are. Certainly, there is a segment of our population, a growing segment, that I think is struggling with the cost of housing, specifically renters. Our government—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

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

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to tell you your job, but I believe that our hon. colleague in his opening statement just called our colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe a liar, and you and I know, as our hon. colleague knows, we should not do that, whether indirectly or directly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the intervention. Unfortunately I was still talking about the hurricane, so I did not pay attention. We will go back and look at Hansard to see if that happened and maybe give the opportunity to the member, if he did say that, to retract it. If not, he can continue along.

The hon. member for Whitby.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. I said the member's rhetorical speech was quite entertaining.

Our government understands that times have been tough in many households across Canada, which is exactly why our government has been introducing new measures to lessen the financial burdens that Canadians are facing due to the effects of global inflation impacting our country. We know that we are faring quite a bit better in many respects than many of our peer countries around the world, but nonetheless, global inflation is impacting Canadians and we are seeing it have an effect on the rising cost of living. I have been hearing in my own riding of Whitby that many are worried about paying their rent and being able to put food on the table for their families.

Making life more affordable for Canadians has indeed been a top priority of this government since day one. I am so very pleased that we are tabling new legislation to help families pay their rent, to make sure they can afford the dental care they need and to put hundreds of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians, just as we have done with the 50% reduction in child care fees, the Canada child benefit, the price on pollution moving to direct quarterly payments, which is giving Ontario families $745 on average this year, the 10% OAS increase and the doubling of the GST tax credit. There are so many aspects of our government's efforts and measures that are targeted to help the people who need it most and who are feeling the crunch of the cost-of-living pressures.

Housing affordability is absolutely crucial, and as a government we remain committed to helping Canadians at this difficult time with immediate relief, putting us on a path to a better and brighter future with many of the medium- and longer-term strategies that we have been implementing for several years. It is why we have tabled new legislation to help families pay their rent, to make sure they can afford the dental care they need and to put hundreds of dollars back in their pockets.

This bill would provide a one-time top-up to the housing benefit. It would deliver $500 to 1.8 million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. This is intended for families making below $35,000 a year or individuals with an adjusted net income below $20,000 a year who pay at least 30% of their income on rent. This benefit is in addition to the Canada housing benefit, which is provided and delivered with the provinces and territories. It provides, on average, $2,500 to help with rental costs so that many families across the country can continue to pay their rent. The top-up payment meets an immediate need and will help families pay their rent now, which is why I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to help pass this legislation.

Housing affordability must be our long-term goal, which is exactly why our government's plan includes measures to put Canada on the path to double housing construction over the next decade. Our proposed first home savings account will help first-time homebuyers save and purchase their first home. This is in addition to a whole host of other measures in budget 2022 that have been added to the national housing strategy, which include cutting mortgage insurance by 25%, doubling the tax credit and adding flexibility to the first-time homebuyer program. In addition, we are banning foreign ownership and curbing speculation, both of which make housing more expensive for Canadians.

To achieve our long-term goal, we are extending and enhancing the national housing strategy, which is an ambitious 10-year plan backed by more than $72 billion in investments. It prioritizes working individuals and working families and especially includes our most vulnerable population.

Let us remember that for decades prior, specifically within the Stephen Harper era, there was no federal government funding going to housing. It is very rich for the Conservatives to criticize a government that has made long-term commitments to addressing housing affordability by investing $72 billion over 10 years and then continually updating its plan to address the challenges that Canadians continue to face across the housing market.

Just look at our government's rapid housing initiative. It is an excellent example of the national housing strategy in action. Launched in 2020 in the midst of the pandemic, its goal was to address the urgent housing needs in Canada. Through two rounds, it has consistently exceeded its targets.

We are now building on this success, last month having announced the third round of the program. We anticipate that in total, we will create at least 14,500 permanent affordable homes just with that program alone. Of those units, significant portions are set aside specifically for indigenous people, for seniors and for women and children, in particular those fleeing domestic violence. The rapid housing initiative is just one of a suite of programs to create a more affordable rental supply, programs that are making a difference to families from coast to coast to coast.

In the past month alone, we have announced a project in Saint John, New Brunswick, that will create transitional housing for women experiencing homelessness; urgent repairs that will stabilize the river bank of the Red River from encroaching on a seniors' co-operative housing unit in Winnipeg; a project that will create more affordable student housing in the area around Université Laval in Quebec City; and a project to help build nearly 100 homes for families, individuals and seniors living in Stouffville outside of Toronto. That is not to mention the four projects in my region and two in my riding specifically that are addressing this need through the rapid housing initiative. We have the Otter Creek co-operative that is expanding. Our government supported that project. There is also the Muslim Welfare Centre, which has purchased an old hotel on Dundas Street in Whitby and is turning it into affordable housing units for those who are at risk of homelessness.

This program is really, truly working, and it is remarkable that it is overachieving the performance targets that it set out in advance. Those are just a few of the hundreds of stories of the national housing strategy's impact and its success in creating affordable rental housing.

However, we also know how important the dream of home ownership is for so many Canadians. That is why we recently announced a five-year stream under the affordable housing innovation fund to help housing providers develop and test rent-to-own models and projects and help renters get on the path to home ownership.

We have seen significant progress but we know that we must do more. With budget 2022, we committed to a suite of measures that represent $6.3 billion in funding over seven years. The majority of this will go to improving and expanding housing in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. We know that many indigenous people live in the north, where housing needs are extremely dire. That makes this an important consideration for all of our housing initiatives moving forward.

This government is committed to making life more affordable for workers, families and the most vulnerable. A major part of that priority means making housing more affordable. Our plan recognizes that everyone deserves a place where they can thrive and be part of a resilient economy that leaves no one behind. We must support workers, families and the most vulnerable who really need the help.

I urge members on all sides of the House to support the legislation to provide a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This is a necessary step in putting money in the pockets of Canadians who need it now, and will help us take one more step toward ensuring everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home.

I reflected on this, and how could anyone who is empathetic to the cost-of-living pressures that families are facing today not support a top-up payment of $500 to help renters afford their rents? That is 1.8 million Canadians who will be thanking us for the House's work to get that money out the door. I urge everyone to step up and support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend our hon. colleague for reading that speech.

It is not a plan; it is a stimulus cheque. It will help Canadians for one month. That is great, but what do they do for the other 11 months? What do they do for each and every day? Canadians are paying more in taxes than they do for the necessities of life, and the government is now planning to tax their paycheques further.

What that Conservatives are saying is to come up with a real plan and help Canadians each and every day, rather than just give a stimulus cheque. What is the plan to really put Canadians ahead and get off Canadians' backs?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as usual there seems to be a real confusion on the other side that somehow CPP contributions and EI contributions are a tax, which is utterly preposterous for anyone to suggest.

What our government is doing to help Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living is the following. We are reducing child care fees by 50%. We are increasing the Canada child benefit. We are doubling the GST tax credit. We are helping renters with a $500 payment. The list goes on and on and includes dental care support. How many more things can a government do to support the average Canadian family?

I believe we are reaching out with targeted supports and helping people who need it the most. I firmly believe that is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if he agrees that the government took a really boneheaded approach to writing Bill C‑31. We agree with the principles, but it is written all wrong.

Allow me to provide some examples. Rent relief will be provided via the Canada housing benefit, but no one in Quebec receives that. Quebec has its own program with the right to opt out with compensation. There is not a single line about that in Bill C‑31, and there is no plan for harmonization.

It is the same with dental care. It is for children under the age of 11. Quebec has a program for children under the age of nine. There is no mention of that and no plan for harmonization.

Does my colleague think that the government realizes that Quebec exists, or should this bill actually be called “how to turn good principles into bad law”?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this would be direct support from the federal government. It would not go through the Canada housing benefit, which is partnered with provinces and territories. It would be a direct benefit that Canadians could apply for.

The terms of eligibility are very succinct and clearly laid out in the bill, so I cannot understand why the member opposite would have trouble understanding how that would work for Quebec. If the member has a specific concern, I would be happy to hear it.

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

Mr. Speaker, members can see, as I extend my hand, that I can nearly hold hands with the member for Whitby. He is in a different party. I sit here because I am assigned to sit here, but he is a friend.

I wanted to say that the chance to support this bill is important for me as a member of the Green Party because we were the first party in this place to call for dental care to be included in our public health system, specifically to start with low-income children, because it is an expensive package. We had it costed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We know it is not something anyone can put in the first budget, so I thank my friends in the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party for getting this in front of us.

In the context of the health care crisis, yes, we definitely need to understand that dental care is health care, and when people cannot afford dental care, it causes larger problems throughout the body. By the way, I do not have a family doctor, and I am 68. My husband is 74 and he does not have a family doctor either. We have not been able to get checkups. I am a little worried about the state of health writ large in this country, and I am worried about the threat of privatization.

I wonder if the hon. member for Whitby has thoughts on what we should be doing to ensure the wheels do not fall off the bus with health care across Canada.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who I get to sit very close to in the House every day. I have shared many good conversations with her over the last few years, mostly about climate change.

I am happy to hear of her advocacy work on dental care, and we could not be more supportive of that. I also acknowledge the NDP's advocacy on that topic. It is good to see this piece of legislation come forward and include support for those in need of dental care.

With regard to health care in general, as my time is up, I would be happy to speak about that at a later date.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics a long time. It may not look like it, because I try to look younger than I am, but I have been in it a long time. My mother is entirely to blame for this. She started to be involved when I was around 10 or 11, and she was fighting for the people in my community. She was working with other New Democrats to create programs and infrastructure that people could rely on.

I have talked about my mother quite a bit this week in the House. She had such an incredible impact on me. She allowed me to grow up with incredible people from the CCF and the New Democratic Party, who truly believed in the institutions that a government can create. Often times, certainly now, we get away from that ability of a government to create something much bigger than a simple tax break or something short term. These are the easy solutions that people think will help them.

Ultimately, it is those long-term investments, the long-term solutions and social programs, that help people. I believe that is what we are talking about today. It is fighting for social justice and pushing for the federal government to ensure that people are treated fairly, treated well, treated with respect and treated equitably.

When my mom was about to retire, she talked to me about running in London—Fanshawe. We spoke about the need for leaders to fight every day for the social programs that lift people up equitably. I know Canadians are hurting. We all know this. Inflation is taking a huge hit on people's pocket books.

One in five Canadians are forced to skip dental visits because they simply cannot afford them. One in three Canadians have zero dental insurance at all. Many Canadians have inadequate coverage, but knowing how many Canadians are hurting is simply not enough. We cannot just talk about it. We have to do something about it.

We have known that dental care belongs in our public health care system for decades. It has been 58 years since the Royal Commission on Health Services called for dental care to be included in our public system. In fact, New Democrats have been fighting for that ever since Tommy Douglas brought forward our universal health care system. We have been talking about pharmacare as well, which is something New Democrats are also pushing for.

I know the huge responsibility it is to fight for the people in London—Fanshawe. That is why I chose to run. My mother made me promise that I would do everything possible to make life better, and I truly believe that we are all here in this place because we want to make that positive difference in our communities and for our constituents.

We certainly do not necessarily agree on what the best path is, but I believe in the power and equity of social programs delivered by government and the power of people who work together to lift each other up. That is why I was so proud to jointly second my former colleague's motion, M-62, which was Jack Harris' private member's motion in the last Parliament. It called for a federal dental care plan.

That is why I am proud to also stand up for housing in the House today through supporting Bill C-31. Is this bill going to fix everything? No. I wish that one bill could. I wish that we would come together as a House and as members of Parliament to truly provide people what they need with those longer-term solutions.

New Democrats are doing that, and we are using every ounce of influence we have in this minority government to actually deliver on the promises that we campaigned on, that I spoke about when I went door to door in London—Fanshawe. We are working on the solutions that we truly believe will help people.

Bill C-31 is a part of that promise. It has dental care, housing supports and more money in people's pockets to deal with the increased cost of living. The dental care benefit for children without insurance under the age of 12 would help parents with an income of less than $90,000 purchase much-needed dental care for their kids.

The dental care benefit would provide direct payments to eligible applicants, totalling up to $650 per child per year for dental services. It would also provide $390 for those with a family income of $70,000 to $79,999. Canadians will be able to apply for and receive the benefit up front, before accessing dental care. They will not have to receive it afterwards, which is incredible.

The benefit would also be flexible, as it can be used for any dental care provided by a regulated oral health professional licensed to practise in the applicant's province or territory. This is a key point. This flexibility will position parents to have discussions with their oral care providers to determine the most appropriate dental care treatment for their kids.

To have children start early on the right health path will not only help them now, it will also help the entire health system overall well into the future. We all know how good oral health is also linked to whole body health. For example, if an infection is present in one's mouth, one's bloodstream can carry the bacteria to other areas of the body, leading to other health concerns such as heart disease and stroke.

Keeping our teeth and gums healthy is an important part of our long-lasting overall health. Lack of access to dental health is precisely why our health care system spends $155 million a year for emergency dental visits in Canadian hospitals.

Bill C-31 also works to put money in people's pockets with its $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit to help pay their rents and a $467 top-up to the GST rebate to help pay their bills.

On Wednesday, Statistics Canada revealed that the number of households that rent has grown twice as fast as the number of those that own. The number of Canadians who rent their homes has grown by 21% in the last decade. Meanwhile, the average cost of rent has grown by 17.6% in the last five years, and we know it has grown even faster in so many other parts of Canada. My constituents of London—Fanshawe have seen some of the highest increases in rent, with increases of up to 26.5%.

With rising inflation, Canadian renters are struggling to make ends meet. The Canadian housing benefit top-up and the GST rebate top-up are first steps in providing real supports for Canadians.

It is clear that, left to its own devices, the Liberal government was not going to act, and the Conservatives think people should fend for themselves. These three life-changing measures for families are here only because of the efforts of the NDP.

We are not going to stop there. We are going to keep fighting to make sure all Canadians have access to comprehensive dental care as part of our health care system and have better access to truly affordable housing.

As inflation hits an almost 40-year high, workers and their families are struggling to keep up. Hard-working people are playing by the rules and doing everything right, but they are falling further behind. Let us be clear, workers did not cause inflation. They should not be the ones paying for it.

Excessive corporate profits and greed are jacking up costs, and wages are not keeping up. Big grocery chains, big oil companies and big box stores are making a fortune off hard-working families. When times are tough, it should not be hard-working people who pay the price. The top 1% have rigged the system to take wealth from working people. While Liberals and Conservatives like to say they support workers, when push comes to shove, they always take the side of CEOs.

This extreme divide between the ultrarich and the rest of us is out of control. One only needs to look at the ultrawealthy who go on joy rides to space because they feel like it. Jeff Bezos spent $5.5 billion to spend 11 minutes as far above the rest of us as he possibly could. Meanwhile, his workers, who do the actual labour that produces that enormous profit, face some of the harshest and inhumane working conditions.

Of course we know the story of Galen Weston, the owner of Loblaws, who was at the centre of the bread price-fixing scandal. He is using the time of inflation to further increase his profits. He raked in the largest amount of excess profits during the pandemic and then argued to cut off workers in his grocery stores from their additional pandemic pay. A man who is worth almost $10 billion U.S. argued that he could not pay more than minimum wage and workers should not get an extra $2 an hour, even though they were on the front lines.

While it is easy to blame and point at the richest people on earth and say they are bad, it is governments that allow them to get away with it, and we need to look at ourselves in this chamber to take responsibility for that.

There are more stories about this wealth inequality. It is something I see in my hometown. The food bank in London has record numbers of people coming in. There are over 20,000 per month. People are going through hard times.

This is a bill that could help them. It is just a start. We need to continue to put more into those major social programs, those long-term solutions, and I am proud the New Democrats are doing that today with Bill C-31.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate many of the comments that the member has made.

One of the aspects of the legislation that is, ultimately, the most important from my perspective, which I know the member shares, is the area of dental care for children under the age of 12.

This is something that I and many believe is going to be able to assist so many families in all regions of the country, assisting, for the first time, many children who would never have received the type of dental care they require, the lack of which often leads children to be put into hospital situations.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to children who are not getting the dental work today and who end up in hospitals because of the affordability issue.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, and I talked about this in my speech: There are long-term consequences and an impact that this will have on future generations and on our health care system overall. There will be savings for our health care system, so that we can put them into other services that people need.

I am grateful that the hon. member has seen the light, because I remember that about a year ago he actually voted against this. I am so grateful that now they agree with New Democrats, who have been talking about this for a long time. They have seen the light, and they will do a lot more that New Democrats are asking for.

The House resumed from September 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are here in Parliament today talking about the affordability crisis that so many Canadians are dealing with, and in a way it feels like progress that we are even talking about this, because most of the debates that happen in Parliament are scheduled by the government, and for two years the government has been ignoring the problem of “Justinflation” that so many Canadians have been dealing with. For two years the government has been ignoring the cost of living crisis, but the election of the member for Carleton as Leader of the Opposition has really focused the mind of the government. Immediately after the Leader of the Opposition took his position, the government started saying that now it needs to try to talk about the affordability issue.

However, unfortunately, the measures the government has put in place are not moving us forward. They are not actually addressing the problem. In fact, in some respects they are making the problem worse. The government still does not appreciate the degree to which it really is its policies, the policies of the current Prime Minister, that have created and continue to create the kind of affordability crisis we are talking about.

At the outset, I think it is important to go over a bit of the history of this. Back in 2020, the member for Carleton, who was at the time our shadow minister for finance, said that Canada was about to face this problem of significant increasing inflation. He said that the significant increase we were seeing in government spending was going to drive inflation. Government being more expensive was going to make it more expensive for everyday Canadians to buy the various goods they needed.

At the time, those concerns were dismissed by the government, including the finance minister, who is still the finance minister. She was more concerned about apparent impending deflation, and that of course turned out to be very wrong. It was clear from the arguments being made at the time, and it is clear now, that when we have the government pouring more and more money out there, borrowing more and spending more but not actually driving increases in production, that is simply going to be inflationary. When we have more money chasing fewer goods, that is going to make everything more expensive.

These arguments were made and have been made over the last two years, but they have been continuously ignored by a government that clearly would rather talk about other issues. It clearly would rather be trying to shift attention away from those things, which really are the fundamental priorities of Canadians.

The government also, first of all, denied it. It was refusing to acknowledge the inflation crisis that it was causing, but as the numbers have come out and as we have seen increasing inflation, it has been harder and harder for the government to deny it. The new form of denial is for them to say, “It is not our fault,” and that they have nothing to do with it. They say that inflation is happening everywhere and is the result of the invasion of Ukraine and other such events, or it is supply blockages and is really an issue of the challenges in global supply chains.

I have a few responses to that. Number one is that this inflation was clearly an issue prior to the invasion of Ukraine, but it was two years ago that we started sounding the alarm on this issue of inflation. Of course, the invasion of Ukraine, as such, started in 2014, but this particular further invasion of Ukraine started six months ago.

It is also hard to make sense of the claim that global supply chains are responsible for instances where the goods are produced here in Canada yet the prices have been going up. Global supply chains can hardly be blamed for the escalating price of property and real estate that makes it increasingly difficult for Canadians in my age demographic and younger to be able to afford housing.

The government is constantly looking for other people to blame. It no doubt will blame the previous government at some point in today's debate, as well as global events that are beyond its control, but the reality is that the government is pursuing policies and pouring more money through borrowing and spending, without proper controls or encouraging more production. These economic policies of the government are driving inflation.

Canada is not the only country with rising inflation, but the point is that other countries that have this problem have pursued the same policies that the Liberal government has pursued. Some countries that are pursuing policies that entail exactly the same problems are getting the same results. However, other countries that are being more prudent and responsible in their spending are not experiencing the same challenges, and that is the reality. The escalating inflation is the result of the economic policies of the government, and it needs to own that challenge.

This is where we have been for the last two years. The government has been trying to distract attention on other issues, but then we have the Leader of the Opposition come into his position and continue his laser focus on issues of affordability and cost of living. Then, right away, the government says that perhaps its needs to talk about this affordability and cost of living thing, so it has tried to come up with a solution. Unfortunately, when we have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The government's approach when it comes to the economy is always the same: more spending, more borrowing and higher taxes. That solution to the inflation crisis is going to make the problem even worse.

The government wants Canadians to believe that their lives will be made better and more affordable by giving away more money. I will share a little story.

I have five children and my three-old son recently came to me with a wad of U.S. dollars. I knew exactly where he got them from, because I had just returned from a trip to Washington and had left the money on the counter. He said, “Daddy, look what I got.” Then he very generously said he would give me one. I told him that was great, but asked him where he got it from. I think that is how Canadians feel when the government offers them more money. The government says that it will be generous and give more money to people, but Canadians want to know where that money has come from.

The government does not generate any money of its own. Government does not work to produce money. It takes money from taxpayers and then redistributes it. Just like my son, who I know is not going out, earning that money and generously offering it to me. I know that he is finding it somewhere around the house. When the government says that it will give more money, it clearly has to find it somewhere around the house, and that is the issue with it. It wants everyone to see how generous it is being, that it is giving away more money. In question period the other day, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the government was giving $1,000 to these families and $500 to those families, but Canadians are asking where the money is coming from.

We have run up more debt under the current Prime Minister than in the entire country's history prior to 2015. That is incredible. That is more debt than in the country's entire history from 1867 up until 2015. This is driving the challenges in the cost of living and inflation. Then the government's solution to the problem it has caused is to do more of the same. We have inflation because of high taxes, high borrowing and high spending and the government tries to solve that problem through more taxes, more borrowing and more spending.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Liberals' approach is going to cost more, and any of these giveaways that they are promising to Canadians, such as these $500 here and $1,000 there, is real money. This is significant money for people, but I think they also understand that the money comes from somewhere and that those dollars are eaten up every day by higher prices. The same government that is saying that it is going to do more on these spending items is actually eroding the value of that money as it is handing it out.

This is a failed policy. Again, doubling down on the same failed approach of more borrowing, more taxes and more spending is not going to achieve a different result. It is “Justinflation” from start to finish. This is what we predicted two years ago. That is what we are seeing now and that is what is going to be further exacerbated by these new policies.

I note that expert analysis from Canada's leading banks said that these policies from the government are going to be inflationary.

l listened to the leader of the NDP, the coalition partner of the government, talking about this issue on CBC's The House. I think it was this past weekend. He said that the NDP did not agree with the analysis from the big banks. The leading economists in the country are saying that the government's policy is going to be more inflationary. Dismissing that expert analysis because people have an axe to grind with the big banks is really missing the point. The government talks about drawing from experts. It should listen to experts and acknowledge that its policies will continue to be inflationary going forward.

The Conservatives are offering a better approach, a common-sense approach for moving us forward.

First, we need a dollar-for-dollar rule when it comes to new spending. If the government is going to approve new spending of $1, $10, $1 million or $1 billion, it should first find an equivalent amount of savings. If there are new areas needing money to be spent, it should identify areas for those savings, areas to find efficiencies, and then put those dollars to toward the new areas.

There are new emerging priorities. There are always going to be new things needing money, but there are also going to be plenty of examples where dollars that were spent in the past no longer need to be spent or, perhaps, should not have been spent in the first place.

I think about some of the things that the government has spent money on, like the $25 million on the ArriveCAN app, which could have been easily saved. We could talk about the failed $35-billion Infrastructure Bank. We could talk about the subsidy package for private media, which is unfortunately eroding confidence in the media. We could talk about the government's various corporate welfare programs. All of those things have, frankly, hurt Canadians instead of helped them.

There have been many opportunities with respect to wasteful spending within the government or spending that was poorly targeted toward objectives. It is great to find new areas to make investments. Let us apply the same discipline that households and businesses have to apply by having a dollar-for-dollar rule.

A great way to help make life more affordable for Canadians would be to stop increasing taxes. Of course, we would like to see lower tax on this side of the House, but as a first step for the government, stop making the problem worse. Right now, the government has automatic scheduled tax increases for next year. On January 1 of next year, happy new year, and on April 1 of next year, which is sadly not an April fool's joke, tax increases are currently scheduled: increases to the carbon tax, which will drive up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating; increases as well to payroll taxes. Those payroll tax increases will take effect on January 1 and then subsequently the carbon tax hike.

It would be a very basic first step for the government to acknowledge it is in a hole right now, so it should stop digging, stop making the problem worse and stop inflicting more pain on Canadians by raising their taxes. Although that would be against the basic instincts of the government, that would be an important step to take, to recognize there is actually a problem that needs to be solved. If the government is unwilling to listen to us and reverse these planned tax increases, then I think it will be clear that the government's words about affordability are just that, only words. We have seen this before. When Canadians are connecting with and responding to a Conservative message, sometimes the government tries to use the same words. It tries to talk about the same things.

The proof is going to be in the pudding. The proof is going to be whether the government follows through with its planned tax hikes, or whether it continues with its approach of borrowing, spending and taxing always going up, or whether it will listen to Canadians, who are feeling the squeeze as a result of “Justinflation”, stop this damage and try to reverse the planned tax—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have been somewhat patient with the member. This was the third time the member has made reference to the term “Justinflation”. He is obviously doing something indirectly, knowing full well that he cannot do it directly. It has been ruled on previously by the Speaker that it is an inappropriate phrase, and this is the third time he has used it. I would suggest it is being done intentionally by the member and that he should try to improve by not using that term, which is unparliamentary, as previously ruled.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard the member use that term all the time. It is a little lame and I do not think it is appropriate. We can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make it think. The Speaker should ask the member to withdraw his lame comment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the hon. member that using that term was already ruled on. I know the member is working it into his speech a little differently, but again I want to caution him on the use of that word.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Timmins—James Bay is excited to hear the rest of my remarks and it sounds like he is chomping at the bit for the privilege of debate that may be coming. I look forward to his remarks. I would encourage him to make sure he has consulted with the rest of his party around the position he takes on that, because there may be some differences of opinion around that important and sensitive issue.

With respect to the remarks I was making, it is very clear that we have two different approaches in front of us when it comes to responding to the economy. The Liberals have started to try to adopt Conservative language, although not all of it, as maybe the point of order demonstrates. They do not want to acknowledge their own responsibility when it comes to inflation, but they have started to acknowledge that there is a problem of inflation. They just think it has nothing to do with the policies of the government, which obviously stretches credibility.

The government has, in the last two years, pursued a radically different direction. In some respects, it has the last seven years, but it has escalated in the last two years. They have pursued a radically different direction with respect to economic policy. We have gone from tens of billions of dollars of deficit, which felt quite significant, and was quite significant, to hundreds of billions of dollars in terms of deficit, and they want to pretend as if that approach has had no consequences with respect to affordability. The reality is that it obviously has and Canadians are seeing the direct impacts on their lives when it comes to rising costs of all sorts of different goods. The government's efforts to pass the blame for this onto everybody but themselves really stretches credibility. Now their proposals of more taxes, more spending and more borrowing are simply going to make the problem worse.

I appeal to the government, on behalf of my constituents and many Canadians who have raised concerns about affordability, that if it wants to show that it has a modicum of sincerity when it comes to the issue of affordability, it should cancel the planned tax increases for next year. It would be a simple way for the government to show that it is actually listening to Canadians.

I want to talk specifically about the issue of the carbon tax. The Liberals think that a tax increase is a replacement for a meaningful response to the challenges we face with environmental policy. It is clear from various reports that their carbon tax is not working to achieve environmental objectives. Many of the groups that have supported them on this are saying it is a dramatic increase they want in terms of the carbon tax, and the Liberals are planning, I believe, and forecasting it.

Before the previous election, they had promised that they would not increase the carbon tax, but then they did increase it. It is continually going up and up. When is it going to stop? Every time their carbon tax fails to achieve their environmental objectives, instead of changing approach and realizing that we actually need an approach that emphasizes technology instead of taxes, they are just doubling down on the taxation approach. It is just not working; it is not achieving the objectives they said it will.

The government really needs to be responsive to what Canadians are telling it and it needs to be willing to make changes in its direction when the evidence clearly suggests it. I repeat that appeal again: no new taxes. The least the government can do is stop the damage, and that means to commit to not proceeding with the tax increases that it has scheduled for next year.

It is a clear choice and a clear contrast. We have a government that is talking about borrowing, spending and taxation, and that is leading to inflation. Then in the official opposition, we are talking about more freedom, giving individuals back control of their lives, reversing tax increases, lowering taxes and fundamentally replacing big government with big citizens, with a big society, as David Cameron talked about, with the idea that a strong society, with people standing together and supporting each other's needs, is much better at bringing us together as communities and moving us forward than the government. I am proud to continue to champion that vision and make the case for that vision in the House and beyond.

At this point, I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

"the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, since the bill will fuel inflation and fails to address the government's excessive borrowing and spending that lead to the inflation crisis in the first place.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

We will move on to questions and comments with the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting in the 43rd Parliament, and I listened to Conservatives saying both that the government was spending too much and that the government needed to spend even more in certain areas.

I heard that reiterated today when this member was talking about debt levels and the need for government to rein in spending. I did not hear him once mention that the government is actually in a surplus position for this current fiscal year. I think that this is really important to recognize, that the government is reining in spending.

However, that is not going to create an affordability element overnight. His proposition is, essentially, that the government should stop spending and that would create affordability.

Why will this member not support targeted measures for vulnerable Canadians? What he is proposing would not have any direct benefit on households for, probably, a couple of years' time.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be very clear. I am proposing, fundamentally, as a first step, that the government commit to reversing planned automatic tax increases for next year.

The member thinks that this is not going to matter to Canadians for a long time. It will matter to Canadians right away. Canadians who are struggling to pay for gas, groceries and home heating will immediately be affected by the tax increase that his party wants to bring in next year.

Working Canadians and small businesses will be immediately impacted by the increase in payroll taxes that his government plans to bring in next year. This would be immediate relief to the affordability crisis.

There is more that it needs to do. I talked about the dollar-for-dollar rule, and I support tax reductions to make life more affordable for Canadians. As a basic first step, which would have an immediate impact, I am calling on the government to reverse its planned automatic tax increases for next year. I hope that he will speak for his constituents and join me in opposing those tax increases.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is quite something to watch the NDP defend the Prime Minister. I would say that undermines their credibility just a bit when they ask questions.

My colleague talked a lot about the fact that it is just inflation and so on and that spending needs to be reduced.

Previously he said that he agreed with increasing health transfers to the provinces and Quebec. I assume that he is aware that in July, not just Quebec, but all the other provinces asked for an increase in health transfers.

Does he agree with that approach?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to have that debate in detail at another time. I think that, in front of us, we are discussing the issue of affordability for Canadians. There is a lot of work to be done on the health care front. There is no doubt about that. There have been many challenges that have been exposed through the COVID pandemic that require significant work.

I look forward to further analyzing, discussing and debating those issues when that issue is up for debate in the House.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear very much from the member about his thoughts on dental care. As I am sure he knows, the biggest reason that children under 12 end up in the emergency room is because of dental emergencies. I am sure that he knows that this happens because children do not have access to good preventative dental care.

I am sure that he has heard from his constituents in Alberta, as he is my neighbour in Alberta, that they are very supportive of dental care. In fact, a massive majority of Albertans support having public dental care available to children.

In the last Parliament, I was the only member of Parliament from Alberta who did vote for dental care. He voted twice against dental care. I am wondering if he will be supporting dental care for children who cannot access dental care in this country, to prevent them from having to go to the hospital, to our overburdened emergency rooms, for care.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, respectfully to my colleague, I have a number of points on this. Number one is that we have major challenges in our existing health care system. Rather than address those challenges, the parties of the left—

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

Thanks to the Conservatives. You gutted Alberta—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

If the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby happens to have questions or comments, he should stand at the appropriate time to do so and not interrupt members while they are attempting to answer the question.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not mind the heckling from the government minister over here. I know he has strong views in support of the Liberal agenda, and he is using his voice in the House to defend Liberal policies.

Many Canadians are disappointed by the fact that the NDP have really sold out. They have sold out on principles they used to articulate. I look at the bill before us, and regardless of what the member for Edmonton Strathcona said previously, she would have to agree that the legislation is not a dental care program. The Liberals have already reneged on their commitment to the NDP, yet the NDP is still persistently supporting and defending the Liberal government. If the NDP is not even going to extract the price that was offered and is still supporting the Liberal government's failed approach, it is a real betrayal of the people the NDP said it would represent.

Canadians are realizing that it is only the Conservative Party that is going to speak on behalf of Canadians and workers, and on behalf of defending our systems and defending Canadians from the attacks on their pocketbooks that we are seeing from the government.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are hearing several members describe an increase to the Canada pension plan as a payroll tax.

Putting that aside, I am aware that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is concerned with increases in government spending. What is also true is that he supported a Conservative motion that would have increased defence spending by over $18 billion. If he is now also supportive a dollar-for-dollar offset, and if he remains supportive of increasing defence spending by $18 billion, could he share where he would cut $18 billion to make room for this new spending?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have already identified a number of areas of spending that I think are not only not necessary but actually make Canadians worse off. It is a reasonable principle to have dollar for dollar to be able to identify those areas while talking about spending increases.

Just to zero in specifically on the Green Party's emphasis on defence spending, it kind of misses the reality of what is happening in the world right now to pretend that a greater focus on national defence is not necessary. We have the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Canada has been significantly involved in sending weapons to that. We think they should be doing more, in terms of sending support to Ukraine.

However, to pretend that we could do these things, which I think are required for basic justice and our security, without thinking about the cost is a bit naive. The threats we face, and the emerging threats we face, are very significant. I know there are some members who, for philosophical or ideological reasons, are against more spending on defence, but there are realities we face in the word today, and members need to take stock of those realities and acknowledge that, if we are going to be in solidarity with Ukraine, if we are going to protect our security, and if we are going to secure our own Arctic, those things do involve costs, and we have to live up to our obligations.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am actually struck by similarities. This member does not have the benefit of the years that I do, but I remember during Pierre Elliott Trudeau's time there was stagflation, which is high inflation, low economic growth and serious economic problems.

My question for the member is this: Is this a return of “Trudeaunomics” or is it “Justinflation”?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I ruled a little while ago about using that term, and I would like to remind members to be extremely careful given the ruling previously made by the Speaker himself.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the best question I have received all day. I did not live during the tenure of the previous Trudeau government, but I can say that my grandfather made sure that I knew about what happened. My grandfather was working as an engineer in Alberta during the national energy program, which was the last time we had a prime minister named Trudeau, and the last time we saw those kinds of really aggressive attacks on our regional economy.

We have seen a repeat of that dismissive attitude towards Alberta and the energy sector. We are seeing a repeat of those kinds of economic policies when it comes to inflation and making life less affordable for Canadians. The idea could come from various sources, but the bottom line is that these are failing policies. Canadians realize these policies are not working and are asking the government to change its course. The government is now trying to change some of the rhetoric. It is saying it is prepared to talk about these issues, but it is not delivering the results Canadians want.

I will repeat the simple appeal that, if the government really cared about these issues, it would cancel scheduled tax hikes for next year. Will it cancel those tax hikes?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

As this is the first occasion I have had to speak in the House now that we are back after the parliamentary recess, it is an honour to be back with colleagues. It is great to see people again and I look forward to the work ahead.

I am speaking on the Canada dental benefit today, but I would be remiss if I did not first mention hurricane Fiona. A lot of constituents back home in London will have family members and friends in areas impacted. All members of Parliament are thinking of those impacted, but for members of Parliament from the Atlantic provinces, including our Minister of National Revenue, who represents, among other places, the Îles de la Madeleine, this is a tragedy that has unfolded and our hearts go out to all impacted.

We have in front of us a truly historic bill, a historic bill that has been called for from people across the country for a long time. The proposed Canada dental benefit is the result of a great deal of work that has been carried out, not just in this House but across the country by activists focusing on social policy, going back decades. It represents the culmination of that work, and it is the first stage of it.

It would apply, in this first instance, to children under 12. In order to understand the importance of it, let me take a step back and put things into a broader context. I do so by referencing a philosopher my Conservative colleagues are very fond of quoting. Usually they quote him entirely out of context, but it is important to put on the record the thoughts of Adam Smith and apply it to this particular social policy. It is something that is not often done, but it puts things into good perspective.

Adam Smith said, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” What he meant by that is that, when a society experiences and sees poverty in ways that limit its members from fulfilling their true potential as human beings, then that society cannot be said to be thriving, successful or prosperous.

That is a timeless insight and universal in its validity, whether it is Canadian democracy we are talking about or beyond. I use it as a way of understanding the importance of this policy innovation, the Canada dental benefit, because over 30% of Canadians do not have dental insurance. In fact, in 2018, over 20% said they did not see their dentist because the visit would be too expensive.

We are talking about kids here, who are perhaps the most vulnerable in our population. These are kids under 12 whose parents could not afford to take them to the dentist. Canada remains one of the most prosperous countries in the world, but when one has an outcome like that, it is tragic, it is unacceptable and it requires a government response. I am glad to see the government is moving in this direction.

As a result of Bill C-31, 500,000 children would be supported. Kids under 12 would be helped via a tax-free benefit. To get technical, and just so we are on the record with that, it would see support go in three different categories. Children under 12 with family incomes of less than $70,000 would see $650 per year per child. Children in families with incomes ranging from $70,000 and $79,000 could receive $390 per year per child, and in families where incomes range from $80,000 to $89,000, a child could receive $260 per year.

The Canada Revenue Agency would administer the benefit and it would be available online via My Account, or on the phone if that is the option available for individuals. There would be an attestation process individuals would need to go through. For example, they would need to attest they are not already receiving private dental insurance and that the benefit would be used for dental expenses. They would also need to keep receipts.

There are also other steps they would need to ensure. They would need to have filed their taxes in 2021. When applying, they would need to confirm they are the parent in fact receiving the Canada child benefit for their child, and they would need to set up direct deposit.

The fact that it is administered by CRA is a very good thing because throughout the pandemic we saw the CRA and its public servants step up and support Canadians in need, including Canadian individuals, families and business. CRA, after all, was the agency tasked with the responsibility of overseeing and administering the various emergency response programs. Those programs proved absolutely vital.

Sometimes we hear criticism, particularly from our Conservative friends. They cast aspersions on the programs that were made available. They voted for them, but now, all of a sudden, they are having second thoughts. It is important for Canadians, and all of us in this House, to think about what would have happened to the country if it were not for programs like the Canada emergency response benefit. If it were not for the Canada emergency wage subsidy or the rental subsidy, what would have happened to businesses?

Those programs among others, of which there were several, kept the country going during the worst economic crisis that we have seen since the Great Depression. That is a fact. I hear my Conservative friends at length these days go after these particular programs. In fact, I worked with the new leader on the finance committee and I remember that, at the time when we were tasked with the responsibility of looking at the emergency response programs and understanding how they would work, he called these “big, fat government programs”. He went on record at a famous press conference to say that the Conservatives were not in favour of such programs. The Conservatives did vote in favour because there was enormous public pressure to go in that direction. However, now, taking on a sort of populist hue, although I am not sure what is going on, the Conservatives continue to speak out against those particular programs.

In any case, the benefit itself is reflective of a view of government that says that government has a responsibility to help individuals in need. Again, 500,000 kids would benefit as a result of what is happening here. I heard my colleague opposite in the Conservative Party just a few moments ago go on at length about how he is opposed to Bill C-31.

Let us look at it another way. What about all those kids who are currently not getting support who would get support? What would they prefer? Would they prefer that we ignore that child who has a genuine health care need? That is not just insensitive. It is cruel because it is proper to view dental care as health care. We have a responsibility from so many different perspectives to look at these issues in a compassionate way. That child in need is our collective responsibility.

In Parliament, we are looking after our constituents. That is what we are sent here to do. In my own community, there are kids whose parents cannot afford to take them to the dentist. I gave the number earlier that about 20% of Canadians, at least in 2018, said they could not afford to go to the dentist and that would include taking their kids to see the dentist. That is not acceptable and that is why this bill is absolutely suited to the time.

The other thing I need to put on the record is that we have a view in this bill that takes very seriously that individual rights matter, certainly, but that individual rights unfettered have no place in a modern democratic society that aims for prosperity. The aim absolutely is to put individual rights front and centre. Individuals, including kids, have the right to health care and when they do not our society is diminished. As Adam Smith rightly said, if we have poverty in society that limits people from ultimately fulfilling their true potential, then that society is absolutely not what it can be. The society does not have the ability to live up to its potential and that applies to its citizens as well. Therefore, when kids cannot get dental care, we are all brought down as a result.

I appreciate the opportunity, Madam Speaker. I will stop there and I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary.

My first question is as a person who was formerly on a board of a homeless shelter. We are seeing across the country and in my riding an increase in homelessness and an affordable housing crisis. How is $500 going to help the many people who are losing their homes in this affordability crisis? It is more like a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Second, my understanding of the deal that the NDP signed with the Liberal Party was that the Liberals were going to put in a dental care program that would cover everyone. This one covers children under 12. With respect to the amounts we are talking about, I just got my teeth cleaned and it was almost $300. Seventy per cent of the folks are covered by programs and the rest who are on social assistance already receive this. How is this anything like the promise that was made? Why did the government break its promise to its partners?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives are now coming on board calling for a full-blown dental program, that would be welcomed, but somehow I think that is not the case.

As I said at the outset of the speech, perhaps the member was not in the chamber at the time, this is the case in the first instance. It applies to children under 12 in the first place, then to kids under 18, and by 2025 it will be a full program. We are working toward this incrementally, one could say, but from a Conservative perspective that would be a good thing. We will get there. We will get to a full-scale program.

As far as homelessness is concerned, I would simply point out to the member the number of investments that have been made in southwestern Ontario, where I know she is from. I have announced a number of projects certainly in London. We are seeing people housed who were not previously housed. We have more work to do. I hope the Conservatives come on board finally and recognize the importance of it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the parliamentary secretary, who seems to fancy himself as having some sort of monopoly on empathy for children, realizes that Bill C‑31 does not provide dental care. In fact, it denies children in Quebec the increase in the Canada child benefit and makes families have to wait for the Canada Revenue Agency, wait for officials, and wait for forms to be entitled to a simple increase in the Canada child benefit. That is what the bill does.

If children's health is truly important to him, he would be in favour of increasing health transfers to the provinces and Quebec so that the existing Quebec dental insurance plan can be improved.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is so much there I do not know where to begin.

With respect to the Canada child benefit, and I know the hon. member is concerned with poverty in Canada, it has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I will put that to the member if he was not already aware.

With respect to his understanding of how this particular dental benefit will work with respect to kids, I think there is some misunderstanding there. As a result of the Canada dental benefit, 500,000 kids will be supported. I look forward to hearing the member's thoughts further. I think he has some concerns with respect to provincial jurisdiction, but that is a matter that I am sure he and his party will continue to take up.

With respect to health transfers, I leave that to the government and the Minister of Health to take up in due course in the upcoming weeks and months, as I think will be the case.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, 50% of low-income Canadians have no dental coverage. In preschool children, the most common surgery performed in pediatric hospitals is for dental decay, and poor oral health in seniors increases the risk of pneumonia.

Does the member agree that preventable dental care is long overdue due to continuous Liberal and Conservative inaction and would prevent costly and serious health conditions?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think what we have with respect to this bill is one of the greatest advances in social and health policy the country has seen. Therefore, I applaud colleagues in the NDP for helping to raise this issue. I know Liberal colleagues on this side of the House have been advocating for something like Bill C-31 for a long time. In the first place we see kids supported. We are going to see that expanded. When oral care is put front and centre, a person's overall health is certainly ensured. I look forward to hearing more from the member in the coming weeks on these issues.

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

Madam Speaker, this is one of the important debates we have had over the years in the House of Commons. We can think back to more than 50 years ago when the Tommy Douglas health care bill establishing universal health care in this country was debated. It was an NDP initiative. The government of the day was forced to put it on the floor of the House of Commons. Canadians, 50 years later, have benefited from that enormously. In fact, as members are well aware, when Canadians are asked what institution in Canada they are most strongly supportive of, it is universal health care.

I was pleased, and my colleague from Timmins—James Bay was in the House as well, when we debated the famous Jack Layton budget. A former Liberal government was forced, by the NDP's presence in the House and a minority government status, to gut and rip up a budget that would have given massive tax breaks, which the Conservatives and Liberals favour, to big corporations and the ultrarich, and instead invest that money in public transit, education, seniors, families and housing. That was an important debate as well

The debate today is very similar because this is an NDP initiative and an NDP bill. There is no doubt. What it would do is establish the principle of dental care in this country and establish supports for Canadians who are struggling to pay their rents and keep a roof over their head.

First, I will talk about the dental care provisions. The reality is that Canadians right across this country are suffering from a lack of dental care. It has been pointed out in the House by the member for Burnaby South and by many others that over a third of Canadians have no dental insurance. That means there are millions of Canadians who cannot afford to visit a dentist.

I know the results of this. I have met with constituents who have teeth that are literally rotting out of their mouth, and we know that the most common surgery performed on preschool children at most pediatric hospitals in Canada is treatment for dental decay. We know as well, from emergency room physicians, that hundreds of millions of dollars of expenses come from Canadians who do not have access to dental care and have to go to emergency rooms because of dental emergencies and the intense pain of not having dental support. Emergency room physicians know that without dental care in place for all Canadians, there will continue to be a cost to the health care system, but more importantly, an intense pain and suffering that is not needed. Instead, we can take up this NDP initiative and put in place dental care.

As members well know, the provisions of the bill start to lay the foundation around dental care and provide supports to half a million Canadian children under the age of 12 who do not have access to dental care now. The Conservatives have just moved a motion to gut the bill, which means they disagree with ensuring half a million Canadian children have access to dental care and that families receive the money so they can do the cleaning and maintenance to avoid the intense pain and suffering that comes from dental decay. Conservative MPs are going to have to answer to that on their doorsteps and will have to explain why they are opposed to dental care.

As members know, what the NDP has forced as well is a commitment by the government to next year roll that out to youth under the age of 18, seniors and people with disabilities. In the final year, the full program would be brought to bear for all families across the country. The reality is that dental care will make a big difference for Canadians. Tommy Douglas said in this House more than a half a century ago that the intent of putting in place universal health care was to ensure that we had health care from the top of our heads to the soles of our feet. The member for Burnaby South has said that very articulately many times in this House and that what we need is a full health care system.

Dental care is a fundamentally important component of that, and I am profoundly dismayed that Conservative MPs are not standing with, in each case, the 30,000 constituents in their ridings who do not have access to dental care. That is the average across the country. There are about 30,000 such Canadians in each and every riding across the country, which is millions if we put the 338 ridings together, and we have Conservative MPs saying they are not going to support that access to dental care.

What profound disrespect that is to Canadians in their ridings, the Conservatives' constituents and bosses, who vitally need access to dental care and need that foundation. Those initial payments are for families that have children 12 and under. They need that dental care, dental support and dental maintenance.

The second component of the bill deals with the housing supplement. About 1.7 million Canadians would receive a housing supplement and housing support so they can pay their rent and keep a roof over their head. The new Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, likes to point out that housing prices have doubled under the Liberals, which is true, but what he fails to point out is that housing prices doubled under the dismal decade of the Harper government. We have actually seen, over the past dismal decade and a half, housing prices quadruple.

Now, I do not understand how the Conservatives will campaign in the next election. Is the member for Carleton going to say, “Well, vote for us because the Liberals have done just as badly as we did”, or “Vote for us because the Liberals have handed out just as much to the banks as we did”? With the incredible extent of overseas tax haves, would the Conservatives say, “Vote for us because the Liberals have been just as bad on overseas tax havens”?

The reality is that the Liberal government has, at least, permitted itself to be forced, prodded, pushed and pulled by the NDP to put in place rental supplements that will help people and put in place dental supports, the foundation of dental care in this country. These are important steps, and this is why we are proud to have this NDP legislation being brought forward. It would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. It would make a difference in the lives of families. For the 1.7 million Canadians who are struggling to pay their rent right now as rent increases, this would help put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

However, if the thought is that NDP members will stop there and rest on their laurels, members know that is not the case. We believe firmly and fundamentally that we need to keep pushing on behalf of Canadians, and we will continue to push NDP initiatives on the floor of the House of Commons. We believe in a health care system that is comprehensive. We believe in restoring health care funding. We have also pushed the government, and have had some success, on building new, affordable co-operative and social housing. For a decade and a half, both under the Conservatives and the Liberals, we have had hollow promises. Now, as a result of the NDP initiative, there will be tens of thousands of units of affordable housing where rent would be capped at 30% of a person's income. That is fundamental.

As members well know, in the past, when we had a national housing program and had provisions for the federal government to actually fund housing and ensure co-operative and social housing, we found that homelessness in this country had almost disappeared. However, then we found otherwise under successive governments. It started with the Paul Martin government, which gutted the national housing program, but we never forget that it was Conservative governments that maintained that irresponsible act. What we have found over those subsequent decades is that more and more Canadians are finding it difficult to even keep a roof over their head. The rental supplement will certainly help, but we need to go further. The NDP has pushed the government to go further to ensure that we actually have in place the provision of affordable housing that would allow for Canadians, particularly of lower income, to have a roof over their head throughout their lifetime.

These are important initiatives, and these are things we will continue to push. We will not stop, because we believe that Canadians really need a party that is going to fight for them in the House of Commons. That is what the 25 NDP MPs have done. We have delivered it this time with this bill, but we will continue to push on behalf of Canadians, who are our constituents and bosses, so that we get more things done, because Canadians need help at this critical time. Canadians need support to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, and they can depend on the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus to continue to fight so they can do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the majority of what my hon. colleague had to say today. Of course, he talked about dental care, particularly for those who are most vulnerable, and I could not agree more, frankly. I think it is an important public policy. It is shared between our two caucuses, and it is great to see that spirit of collaboration here in Parliament.

I am not privy to the ongoing working relationship between some of the ministers on this side of the House and the NDP, but it seems that the NDP wants a permanent federally delivered program. My question for the member is not on the merits of dental care but on the delivery. Why does the NDP feel that it should be administered by the Government of Canada when there are existing programs at the provincial level that are focused? Why not work with each province to make sure the outcomes we want at the federal level can be delivered by the provinces, which are closest to health care, and the providers that want to see this good work completed?

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

Madam Speaker, the bill is very clear that this is a federal initiative. The reason it is so important to do that, as members know, is to ensure there are supports right across the country for dental care. What this means is that half a million kids and their families will have access to payments for teeth cleaning to avoid dental decay and for fillings, ensuring there is proper dental oral health for all those kids. That will extend to people with disabilities, seniors and all families.

The alternative would be, as we have seen over the last seven years, consulting in circles for years and nothing being done. That is why the NDP pushed for a federal program. We are happy to see in this bill that we are laying the foundation for that and families will benefit.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just listened to the hon. member speak about everything except what is happening right now with how much Canadians have to face. They are paying extra taxes, and with inflation, everything is expensive. It seems like he spent time giving himself credit and attacking the Conservatives, when he should have probably focused on examining this and telling Canadians that he does understand what is happening right now regarding inflation and the cost of living, which is going through the roof.

Why did the member not talk about cutting taxes to help Canadians? Why did he not speak about reducing inflation so Canadians can have better ways of living, instead of attacking and attacking and giving himself all the credit?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not really know what to make of that. We have Conservatives in the House who say they are concerned about the cost of living for Canadian families, but they are not going to accept dental care and are not going to support it. In fact, they moved a motion to gut the bill, which would help families pay for their children's dental expenses. How can they square that hypocrisy?

We have Conservatives standing in this House saying they are going to cut back pensions and that they do not want the CPP to be a sound foundation of support for people's retirements. I remember the Harper government saying to 65-year-old and 66-year-old Canadians that they were going to rip off their pensions and take them away.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

That is misleading.

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians judged them on that in 2015 and that is why the Conservatives remain in opposition.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is a point of order, but I do want to remind the hon. member for Edmonton Manning that he had an opportunity to ask a question. When the answer was being given, he should not have been interrupting. I hope the hon. member has a point of order and not a point of debate.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a point of order. I did not mean to do so, but it is misleading and I would ask the member to apologize—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-L'Île for a brief question.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the government's refusal to increase health transfers, which would allow Quebec and provincial governments to improve dental care.

How will this plan not penalize Quebec and New Brunswick, which already have programs to cover dental care?

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

Madam Speaker, as the member for Burnaby South and the member for Vancouver Kingsway both said, the NDP has always pushed for increased health transfers. I can say with absolute certainty that if the NDP were in government, if we had enough members to form the government, we would have already increased health transfers. How would we pay for it? That is a no-brainer. We are losing $25 billion a year to tax havens; we could that money for health transfers. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said. We believe that investing in health is more important. We need to increase funding for our health care system to ensure an excellent system for all Canadians.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

We are hearing all sorts of things today, but let us get back to the basics of Bill C‑31. This essentially provides financial support to the parents of children under 12. It is not a dental care plan. I will illustrate that later.

It also creates a rental housing benefit. The Bloc Québécois is not against the principles of the bill in general. However, there are important problems that will need to be carefully examined. I hope that in committee, the parties will be open to the idea of supporting an increase in payments for health care.

The first problem I see is that, as I mention all the time, health falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. They are the ones that have the expertise. As recently as July, they reiterated their request that the federal government increase health transfers to cover 35% of spending, which amounts to $6 billion for Quebec. That is a lot of money every year. When I hear about small, one-time, stopgap measures for housing, for example, and I hear politicians delivering somewhat rehearsed speeches about what they are getting done, to me, it is but a drop in the bucket. Let us get serious and increase health transfers.

My colleagues have become accustomed to my saying this, but I want to quote the Canadian Dental Association: “The single best way to quickly improve oral health and increase access to dental care is to invest in, and enhance, existing provincial and territorial dental programs.” It is talking about investing in provincial and territorial programs. “These programs are significantly underfunded and are almost exclusively financed by provincial and territorial governments.” The association points out that it is “important to ensure that any new initiatives do not disrupt access to dental care for the large majority of Canadians who already have dental coverage”. That is coming from the experts and not just the Bloc.

I had the privilege of replacing my colleague from Mirabel at committee last week. We heard from Ms. Tomkins and discussed this point. The committee heard from many people, including Mr. Ungar, a researcher attending as an individual, who explained the importance of keeping decision-making in the regions, close to the people with needs because the needs are not the same in Nunavut, Ontario or Quebec. That is why there are local governments that are in the best position to make these decisions. The greater the distance between the decision-making and the need, the less appropriate decisions will be.

On the second point, there is no evidence in Bill C‑31 that this money will go to dental care. It pains me to have to point that out in the House. However, I am somewhat surprised that I am one of only a few people talking about it this morning. A parent will be able to submit a dental bill for $100 and automatically receive a cheque for $650, with no further follow-up. That is not necessarily what we want. Imagine the amount of paperwork this could create. Plus, it allows another level of government to dabble in an area that Quebec is already responsible for.

It is so tiring to come to Parliament and see how far Canada lags behind Quebec in social matters and to see that we are always paying for others.

In 1974, Quebec insured children under the age of 10. It is not perfect, and we would never claim that it is, but it started in 1974. I think Canada is behind.

In 1979, we also gave support to people on social assistance. Now, the great, all-knowing Canada is going to swoop in and add another program on top of that, using our taxes, but distributing money elsewhere, not just in Quebec. Quebec has already figured out what it is doing with its half of the budget.

Once Quebeckers comprehend how much we manage to do with half a budget, they will realize we should be using our whole budget and claiming political independence to get rid of useless duplication. There is a reason the Bloc Québécois wants independence, and it is not because it is cute.

I have already moved on to the third item. I got a little carried away again, but it is important to tell it like it is.

This bill is more about politics and optics than anything of substance. The Liberal government is stubbornly rejecting the opposition's ideas. It has no respect for the opposition; all it cares about is a majority. How did it get that majority?

First, it called an election in the middle of a pandemic, which was a bust. That did not work; we wound up with the same government. It activated Plan B and got into bed with the NDP, making promises to that party it never intended to keep. I am sad for the New Democrats. This benefit is for children. It is not dental insurance.

Members of the House are supposed to be able to read. People read documents properly. I would like people to open their eyes to what is going on.

Earlier this summer, Liberal ministers realized that there was absolutely no way they could set up a universal dental insurance plan across Canada by year's end. That was the NDP's fabricated ultimatum, so there were supposedly threats issued that I do not believe meant a thing because I will be very surprised the day the NDP votes against the government in this Parliament.

The NDP led the government to believe that their agreement was hanging in the balance. So the government is proposing a phoney monetary benefit. It is pretending to give money for dental care. In the meantime, young people and seniors will not necessarily get more care.

Ironically, the day the bill was introduced, there was a media release by different groups that were on the Hill, including unions, people who represent the less fortunate and seniors groups. They told us that even though they all agree with the government offering dental care to children, the people who are having the most difficulty affording dental care are seniors. There is still nothing for seniors.

I would like the people from the NDP to explain that to me. Maybe I will get some answers in the questions they ask, but I would love to chat a bit.

What are they doing about increasing old age pensions for seniors to help them afford groceries and pay their rent? What is being done about that? Is that seriously being traded for a single $500 payment for housing? During an election campaign or in front of the cameras they will make fine speeches about how they took action, when these are totally ineffective half-measures.

Let us look at what the federal government is actually doing. The federal government's approach suggests that it alone has the corner on the truth. It is imposing conditions and has decided to take over health care, despite the 1867 Constitution that it signed behind our backs. It is all-knowing.

If the government is indeed all-knowing, why can it not manage its EI program properly? Why did the EI temporary measures expire yesterday? Why has the minister done nothing over the past year, despite her mandate letter to improve this program and adequately protect our workers? No, the government would rather continue to steal from people. At present, EI pays just four out of 10 workers. If that is not stealing, I do not know what is.

Let us talk about passports. What a mess. That falls under federal jurisdiction. The government needs to take action and do something. In early July, my office was dealing with about 15 passport cases a day. I have three employees in my office, four, including the person working in Ottawa. Just with immigration delays and border problems, I think the government has a lot on its plate.

Yesterday I watched Tout le monde en parle. They had people on to tell their stories. Incidentally, I have a lot of respect these people. I think they showed incredible strength. Honestly, in their situation, I do not think I would have been able to speak so calmly about my child having been killed. That is what we are talking about. Faced with this, the Liberal government has introduced a bill that will reduce the number of legal guns while doing absolutely nothing about the illegal ones.

Start by doing what you are supposed to do. We, in Quebec, will take care of the rest. Give us our money.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

First, I must remind the member that he is to address questions and comments or his speech through the Chair and not directly to the government.

Second, he used the word “steal”. It is really not accepted parliamentary language here in the House. I would therefore ask him to be careful of what he says in his speech.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. opposition colleague for his speech this afternoon.

I understand the principle of provincial and territorial jurisdictions, in particular with respect to dental care. However, I do not understand why my colleague is against direct payments for rent support and dental care support until a potential agreement is signed with our partners in the confederation regarding the implementation of this strong federal program.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to rephrase the last sentence of my speech. I urge Parliament to mind its own business and look after its own affairs, instead of interfering with the provinces. I think that is worded better. I will be careful in the future.

Now, to answer the question from my esteemed colleague, I would say that we are not against the bill. We will vote in favour of the bill at second reading so that it can be studied. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I hope that the government will be open to making amendments so that we can support the bill.

Yes, children need care, but, as I said, we already have a program. We obtained the right to opt out of the day care program with full compensation. That was just before the election and, as we know, that can sometimes change decisions. This is one unfortunate aspect of politics in Canada.

Since the government made an agreement for day care, why not do the same for dental care, since we already have our own program?

We are not against the direct payment for rent support, but this measure is just a drop in the bucket.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech. I am not certain that the $500 is an effective solution for those who cannot afford their rent.

Does the member believe that it is a good initiative?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, it is obviously just a drop in the bucket. It adds up to $42 a month. For someone paying $1,500 or $1,600 a month in rent, it does not make a big difference. However, when people are in need, every cent they receive can give them a little bit of breathing room. That is why we have mixed feelings about it. Some members are saying that this changes nothing, that it does not address the problem, but if we can give $500 to people whose rent represents more than 30% of their income, I think we should do it.

However, that is not all we should be doing. We should also be building housing. I do not know how many of us have ever taken economics courses, but it seems to me that the basic rules of supply and demand are not difficult to understand. There is a shortage of housing, so we should invest in construction. That will lessen the pressure on housing. This will require action, however, and we are faced with a government that is doing nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. I hold him in high regard. I serve with him on the agriculture committee.

He asked, during his speech, why seniors are not being covered. I would just encourage him to read the full text of the agreement. He would see that seniors are the next group who will be covered as part of the terms of this agreement.

I guess my frustration is that we have waited for so long for dental care to be an issue, and I know that the children in my riding need this help now.

He has seen the statistics. He knows that this is a desperate need in his community and in communities right across Canada. Would he agree, at least at this time, in this moment, that parliamentarians can come together and actually deliver something that Canadian children, Quebec children, need, so that their health outcomes do not get worse?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I humbly thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard as well. As I said in my speech, we are not against funding for dental care. What we are saying is that Quebec already has a system.

The government is just adding another layer with more paperwork. It will cost more than we get in return. The government seems to be randomly throwing money out there. We want to see things done properly. We want higher transfers for Quebec, which already has a program and can manage on its own.

Let me reassure my colleague that we have the same fundamental objective. This is a need, and we need our money. That is what we have been saying for quite some time.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying I gave myself a little challenge, and this is my first time giving a real speech with only a few notes. This is also my first speech of the session. I hope that we can all be productive here. We hear a lot about listening, but I want to focus on active listening. In other words, members who are here in the chamber must truly be present. Let us listen to one another, take notes and make sure that we understand things before debating. Otherwise, what is the point of being here today?

I am obviously going to be talking about Bill C‑31, and in particular part 2, but first, I want to say that my thoughts are with those on the Magdalen Islands and the north shore. We stand with them. I visited the Maritimes this summer and this has made me emotional. I urge everyone watching us now to be very generous.

I now want to talk about part 2 of the bill, which has to do with housing.

I have mostly focused on the details of the bill, but I would like to say that before becoming an MP in 2019, I had already been working in the social development field in my community for many years as the director of a community development corporation.

A community development corporation is a form of association that brings together all the organizations that work for the community. Collectively, we sounded the alarm over ten years ago. In fact, we sounded that alarm just when the funds and the agreements that had been in place before no longer existed. There is a reason why Quebec decided to roll up its sleeves and help Quebeckers.

When I arrived in the House in 2019, my first speech dealt specifically with my concerns regarding what I had observed on the ground. Across Canada, including in Quebec, we have seen an increase in the number of people who are homeless or living in vulnerable situations.

Yes, some programs have helped people cope with our northern winters, but that does not change the fact that the growing number of vulnerable people is a problem.

My colleagues from other ridings and I have talked about how often people turn to us. People want to know what is going to happen a month from now, because they have two children and they have looked everywhere but are struggling to find a place to live.

One person who comes to mind is Mélanie, who was wondering what she was supposed to do. The only place where she could live was 40 kilometres from her work, but gas cost more than she would ever have thought possible.

What can we do?

I think we need to take another look at what the government did not do. How could it have done more than provide this rental housing top-up, which is just a band-aid solution?

A break on the rent provides a little relief, but it is a drop in the bucket considering everything else people have to deal with when things move fast and it is hard to cope.

Yes, that $500 will help people. My colleague mentioned earlier that it adds up to $42 a month. I own rental housing, so I am acquainted with this subject. Supply and demand have completely changed the availability of housing, especially affordable housing. We all know rent has gone up a lot.

This measure may help, but, as I said earlier, there is something else we have to keep in mind. When people find a place that meets their basic needs but is not near where they need to go, they have to spend more of their household income on transportation. That is a problem.

I am concerned about the impact of that and about availability.

I think all members are well aware of the situation, especially in Quebec. People reach out to our offices, and we often give them the tools they need to get the money they are entitled to, even though they do not always realize it exists. There is work to be done in that regard. It is our job to let people know that we can help them. There is no denying that this bill is going to pass. Of course, we cannot be against doing the right thing, but we have to think about what happens next.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned the need to take the bull by the horns. Some will want to talk about the labour shortage and will wonder how we can get this done. We have to start somewhere. Student co-operatives are being set up, and landlords in different municipalities are eager to contribute, so I think now is the right time. Funding must be accessible and available. We cannot wait two years for a Canada-Quebec agreement, since we are wondering if it is even necessary, given that we already have measures for our citizens.

Yes, it is necessary and it is even urgent. I was looking at the numbers for access to housing. Our performance as a G7 country is especially embarrassing. This is not the first time I have had the opportunity to talk with people abroad. When we look at the picture of who we are, I am quite often embarrassed. I tell them that we are going to address the problem because we know the situation is tough. According to the Association des professionnels de la construction et de l'habitation du Québec, there is a shortfall of between 40,000 and 60,000 housing units in Quebec. Those figures are from 2016. It is unbelievable.

My colleague next to me represents the riding of Mirabel. That town has seen one of the largest population increases. We are welcoming, but where are we going to house everyone?

Are the situations we are experiencing as homeowners normal? Three years ago, I received a phone call from an individual who told me he wanted to add his name to a waiting list because he really wanted to rent my apartment. He liked the location because it was near his work and his children's school. I had to ask him what he was talking about. He told me that my renter was leaving the following month. I learned that people wanted to add their names to a waiting list before my renter even notified me that he was leaving. I was not given three month's notice. In light of all this, I hope that action will be taken on things people have been calling for in the House, for which plenty of arguments have been made and that have repercussions on our constituents.

I would even say to members that these are the people who voted for us and we must not forget about them. I am sad when I return to my riding and have to talk about what we did during the week and what action we will be taking. I feel that this place has not acknowledged that the housing crisis is a real crisis because, had we done so, we would have taken action. During the pandemic, we demonstrated that we really can act quickly and effectively during a true crisis. That is why I am asking members to make decisions and do something for our people who are currently at risk of becoming homeless. That is all I have to say for today.

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

Madam Speaker, I like to think of Bill C-31 as progressive legislation that will ultimately meet the very high demand out there. Providing support for children under the age of 12 to get dental care, I think, will bring about profound and positive change for many children who ultimately end up in surgery situations or having to go into hospital because of not getting dental work, as an example.

For clarity purposes only, I wonder if the member could just give a clear indication about this. The previous speaker implied that they would be voting in favour. Am I to understand that the Bloc members are going to be voting against the amendment and then in favour of the bill itself?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question.

I really talked about just part 2. We will obviously be supporting this proposal.

We are extremely worried because we do not want Quebec and New Brunswick, which have already taken the initiative to help these people, to be penalized. That aspect worries us.

As my colleague stated, helping people who cannot afford dental care is one thing. However, this bill is not proposing a dental care program. In my opinion, as the bill states, it is a cost of living relief measure.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have seen over the last two years that the Prime Minister has refused to meet with the premiers who have concerns about addressing health care. Perhaps if the Prime Minister had taken those meetings, he would have learned that all provinces, except for one province and one territory, offer dental care support for children in low-income families. In addition, 70% of Canadians already have dental care.

Does the hon. member think that if the Prime Minister had had those consultations and negotiated with the provinces in good faith, we could have addressed other affordability issues Canadians are facing? Does he think that perhaps instead of adding new spending that would not help children and would not help provinces because it is duplicating programs that already exist, it could have eased some of the inflationary burden that is eating away at people's ability to pay their rent and provide care for their children every month?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, when one is in a relationship and must live together, one will obviously find all kinds of ways to maintain that relationship.

I sincerely believe that the wording of this bill is all for show. That is why we are talking about dental care and the details on how this measure will be funded.

As my colleague pointed out, this is ultimately a supplementary benefit. This is not the much-awaited outcome of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

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

Madam Speaker, I remember when Stephen Harper went to the World Economic Forum to announce that he was ripping seniors off of their pensions. He did not tell seniors in Canada, but he told the World Economic Forum.

Now the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is pushing a motion to cut off dental care benefits for children under 12. At least we are seeing a consistency with the Conservatives. They are going to kick seniors to the pavement, and they are going after children.

I know the member is normally pretty lame in what he brings forward, but I think this really sends a strong message. I want to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about this Conservative vision, in which not only do they go to the World Economic Forum to go after seniors, but they use their member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to try to cut dental benefits for children in need.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my interventions are now a little more polished. After three years I am getting the hang of it.

I want to talk about the benefits. I sincerely believe that my colleague must be very disappointed to have to vote on this bill. Based on what we have been told so far, the dental care is nothing like what was expected. I would tell my colleague that his party needs to keep working because they are not there yet.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I must remind the hon. member, as I mentioned last week, that she cannot use documents that have the party logo on them in the House. Advertising is not allowed.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Richmond Hill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Today, as I rise to speak to Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, I feel proud. I am delighted. More important, as indicated in the name of the act itself, I feel relief, relief from the fact this legislation lays out the groundwork, complements programs and through its two main elements, serves to address some of the most prominent affordability concerns in Canada, more specifically in my riding of Richmond Hill.

It is a known fact that, following the COVID–19 pandemic and all the global and domestic challenges that have arisen since, Canadians have been deeply impacted by the rising cost of living. Addressing such large-scale issues cannot happen overnight, but rather through a multi-step, gradual process, which is exactly what is offered in Bill C-31.

Allow me to provide a brief overview of the bill by breaking it down into its two main components: dental care and housing. These are two domains that affect not only the financial, but also the physical well-being of each and every Canadian. Our government's focus on enhancing each of them is widely apparent through the bill.

To give a quick summary, Bill C-31 would make life more affordable for families across the country by providing dental care for Canadians in need with a family income of less than $90,000 annually, starting with children under 12 years old in 2022.

It would also provide immediate relief for individuals and families struggling with housing affordability through a one time $500 supplement to the Canada housing benefit.

Canadians are entitled to good oral health, regardless of their financial situation. It is estimated that about one-third of Canadians do not have any form of dental coverage and that one in five have avoided dental care because of its overwhelming cost. This is a dark reality for many low-income families. Canadians should not sacrifice their well-being and face long-term health issues because of their inability to afford seeing a dental professional. This is why we continue to work tirelessly across provinces and territories to ensure that accessible dental care is delivered to those who need it the most.

While our government continues to develop a durable and inclusive national dental care program, which will provide $650 a year to eligible parents for the next two years, it will also ensure timely dental appointments and checkups for children.

As a member of the health committee, I had the pleasure of hearing remarks from the president of the Canadian Dental Association, Dr. Lynn Tomkins, during my study on the topic of children's health. Dr. Tomkins testified that tooth decay remained one of the most common and preventable childhood chronic diseases in Canada.

Beyond the risk of pain and tooth loss, the effects of the absence of dental care for children can be devastating. Missing school, improper eating and lack of sleep are among the factors that arise from the lack of dental treatment for children. In the words of Dr. Tomkins, “nothing is more heart wrenching than having to treat a young child with severe dental decay.” The experience can cause lasting dental anxiety and fear.

This is why the Canadian Dental Association welcomed our government's once-in-a-generation federal investment in dental care.

The Canadian Dental Association expressed its appreciation of the phased approach being taken by government toward this issue. This gradual approach will allow time for consultation and collaboration with all relevant stakeholders on a long-term solution to improving access to dental services.

Bill C-31 also puts another key objective forward, which is ensuring every Canadian has a safe and affordable place to call home. We all know that the affordability crisis is top of mind for Canadians.

As such, during the summer, I had the opportunity to catch up with many community members and leaders through events such as our community council breakfast meeting where my constituents shared their concerns about their daily struggle to make ends meet.

For many renters, the high cost of living has resulted in an increasing challenge to find housing they can afford, which is why this legislation has arrived at the perfect time.

When passed, this will put hundreds of dollars back into the pockets of millions struggling with increased rent costs through a one-time $500-top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This top-up would be in addition to the Canada housing benefit, which already provides an average of $2,500 to thousands of working individuals and families from coast to coast to coast. I want to emphasize that this payment is part of a larger comprehensive plan to assist Canadian families nationwide.

Our housing strategies and programs have been successful in many ways. As a singular example, the launch of the affordable housing initiative back in 2016 aspired to create 4,000 units of housing. Instead, it has yielded 19,000. Following the legacy of this initiative, our plan will put Canada on the path to double housing construction over the next decade.

These are only two highlights of the consistent initiatives our government has taken to achieve affordable and sustainable housing for more Canadians. At this time, we are on the right track to accomplishing just that, through the passing of C-31.

Allow me to demonstrate just how important this legislation is to the people of my riding and, most important, to the key community leaders and service providers that strive to provide life-saving support for people experiencing homelessness year after year in Richmond Hill and across York Region.

Blue Door, as the largest emergency housing operator in York Region, strives to provide emergency housing support services to children, youth, men, women and families at risk of homelessness. Blue Door's housing emergency program has lifted over 500 individuals out of poverty by helping them navigate through COVID-19; provided over 19,000 nights of safety for homeless individuals; and served over 64,000 meals for the vulnerable population across York Region.

I continue to hear about the tremendously positive impact Blue Door makes in Richmond Hill through programs such as the mosaic interfaith out of the cold program.

Every year, from November to June, homeless adults and youth in Richmond Hill are provided with essential support at the Richmond Hill Presbyterian Church, which is one of Blue Door's emergency housing sites.

Speaking of community leaders and heroes, the 360° Kids organization in Richmond Hill is yet another key community service provider, which provides kids in crisis with care. Day in, day out, Clovis Grant and his dedicated team at 360° Kids help youth make positive changes in their lives by overcoming barriers and moving from crisis to a place of safety and security.

I can confidently affirm that passing this important legislation will have a direct and positive impact on the lives of people, as the 360° Kids and Blue Door service users.

I urge members to support community leaders across all ridings like Michael Braithwaite, Clovis Grant and their dedicated teams from Richmond Hill, who provide housing services to our most vulnerable, by passing the legislation so we can provide a safety net for those who need it the most.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, with regard to my colleague's comments on direct and positive impact, you mentioned, and I can question you on this, dental care programs—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member may want to use the word “he” instead of “you”.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, dental care programs for low-income children exist in almost all provinces and territories, and almost 70% of Canadians have dental coverage. Therefore, I question your statements that conject against that. Further, I acknowledge my error.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not clear whether she is speaking directly to you or young sheep. It is fair, for the record, to have it clear she is speaking through the Chair to the member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member just corrected herself, so I will let the hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington finish her question.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will finish by saying that the Prime Minister has announced more inflationary spending that does nothing to help seniors and families struggling to put gas in their tanks and food on their tables.

Could the hon. member comment on the fact-checking in his remarks today?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of working with my colleague at the health committee for a short period of time. During that time, we heard from a number of witnesses, who stated that Canada, for the funds it transfers to provinces, places second in OECD countries. However, for health care delivery, we are 27th. For funds being transferred from the federal government to the provinces, we rank number two; for delivery services, we rank number 27. There is a gap.

As we can see, it is also evident in the fact that on service delivery as it relates to oral health, especially for children under age 12, this gap remains. Our government, through this progressive program being introduced in this progressive bill, is trying to address that gap.

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

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who reminds us that bullying has no place in politics.

With respect to Bill C-31, I would like to know whether my colleague from Richmond Hill is comfortable with the fact that the poorest parents are the ones who will suffer the most from this bill. In order to receive the increased Canada child benefit, they will have to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency's administrative hassle, not once but twice: first to qualify, and then to provide justification after the fact.

I would like to know whether my colleague is comfortable with these regressive conditions in Bill C-31.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that I also have the pleasure of working with the member at the health committee.

As we said, this is progressive legislation and we look forward to it going to committee and studying it, ensuring that all the areas are addressed.

As it relates to the provinces, the provinces are doing their job of providing service delivery, especially in health care, to a lot of their constituents. It is great to see that Quebec is leading that. This is why we need to ensure that we take our time, work with all the provinces and ensure there are no unintended consequences. The details of how people qualify, how the money gets transferred and all of those things are yet to be determined. However, there was a need to ensure that we addressed the shortfall for children 12 and under, and we are taking concrete action on that today.

I hope my colleague and his party support the bill.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to quote Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, who said, “Moving forward on rental and dental relief is essential and will help to ease the affordability crisis being faced by families today. The rising cost of housing and out-of-pocket dental care has put many families under water.”

Although the Liberals voted against the NDP's 2021 motion to give Canadians access to dental care, I am happy they have finally agreed to follow suit.

Does the member agree that this much-overdue dental care is necessary for all Canadians and would benefit us all?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, naturally we do. That is why we have introduced the bill and have taken leadership on ensuring that the areas where gaps exist in our health care delivery are addressed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in this House and speak to Bill C-31, a piece of legislation that comes at a very critical time for a lot of Canadians. Many of my colleagues here in this place speak with people in our home communities and across our ridings about the challenges they face. When I speak to folks these days, so many of them tell me about the rising cost of living and the challenge it is placing on their family budgets.

Many of these people talk to me about it and express how it feels that this is happening to them, and they have very little agency. They did not cause the war in Ukraine. They did not break the international supply chains. They did not force huge corporations to act in a time of crisis to jack up their profits on the backs of ordinary Canadians. People are working hard and are falling further behind.

This crisis of inflation affects everybody, but it affects some more than others. It especially affects those on fixed and low incomes. Some folks have the ability to shift their spending, but when they are living on a limited income and when their paycheque is a fixed amount and the cost of everything is going up, they have very few options. Everyone in this place would agree that it is there that we should focus our policy attention as legislators. Those are the folks who need help the most right now.

Part of this bill is a very simple component. The top-up of the Canada housing benefit would get a one-time $500 payment to Canadians who qualify for that benefit. Specifically, they are families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. That would help 1.8 million Canadians with the cost of living, and it would make a real difference. It is something that the government should have brought in months and months ago, but the time to act is now. We need to ensure that this legislation gets through so that people can benefit from this payment.

The second part of this legislation is also related to the cost of living. It would help Canadians with their costs, but it is different. The other part of this legislation, the Canada dental benefit, is a down payment on something that is going to have a profound and long-lasting benefit for millions of Canadians. It is going to be transformational and to make a difference for generations to come.

Many would agree that universal health care is our country's crowning achievement. This is possibly our greatest policy achievement. It is something that is based on a simple but profound premise, which is that in a world in which so many of the aspects of quality of life correlate with one's financial status, health should be different. Everyone, no matter their income, should have access and the dignity of access to basic health care, yet, ever since the Canada Health Act was first passed into law in the 1960s, it has been a project incomplete. It has been a vision unfulfilled, because we all know that there are aspects of our health that were not included in the legislation that created universal health care. As New Democrats we have always held as part of the vision, right back to the days of Tommy Douglas, that things like our eyes, mental health and dental care are integral to our concept of health and to our health outcomes, and that they must be included in our vision of universal health care for all.

Nobody here in this place can argue that dental care is not a part of health care. We all know people who suffer from extreme health issues as a result of dental pain and dental issues that go untreated. Dental care is expensive; everyone knows this as well. Thirty-five per cent of Canadians lack proper dental insurance, and that number jumps to 50% when we are talking about low-income Canadians. Seven million Canadians avoid going to the dentist because of the cost. It is shameful. It is something that has to change, and the bill in front of us is the first step in heading down that road. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease and the worst access to dental care. This is something we have to change. We are going to change that. This bill is the start.

The legislation in front of us begins with the children of low- and modest-income families, and that is no mistake. We all know that if we can catch these dental care issues at a young age, we can prevent much more serious issues down the road. This is about prevention, and it is about helping young children address serious health issues before they become even more serious.

In 1964, the Royal Commission on Health Services recommended precisely this. It stated that the government should, as quickly as possible, implement a dental program for children, yet here we are over half a century later, finally tackling this critical aspect of health care.

Shamefully, tooth decay remains the most common, yet preventable, chronic childhood illness in Canada. The most common reason for kids undergoing day surgery and missing school is dental decay. The most common surgery performed at most pediatric hospitals across Canada is related to dental issues. Left unchecked, these issues affect people's health in profound ways, as I mentioned, but they are preventable and we are finally on the path to making things better.

We are not going to stop at dental care for kids. I sent a mail-out to my constituents asking for their feedback on this proposed dental care program. The vast majority of the responses I received were from seniors. It is absolutely heartbreaking to hear some of the messages they sent me.

One woman wrote in and said, “My husband is working at 67 years old to keep his coverage going. It would be great to have support so he could retire.” Someone else said, “We skip dental care because we can't afford it, and dread the day we might need serious attention.” Another senior wrote me and said, “Last year, one tooth cost me $5,000. That is 10 months of my CPP.”

This is something we can address. What we have in front of us with the Canada dental benefit is indeed a down payment on a permanent national dental care plan. It is not only going to help kids under 12. It is going to help seniors. It is going to help youth under 18. It is going to help people with disabilities. It is going to help millions of Canadians who are struggling with dental health issues.

New Democrats have pushed hard for dental care for a long time. Of course, it was always a part of our vision for universal health care. Just a year ago, our brilliant colleague, Jack Harris, stood in this House and put forward a motion urging the government to implement a national dental care plan. It was a sad thing that both Conservatives and Liberals voted down that motion, yet here we are a year later, taking the first steps toward a national dental care plan that is going to help millions of people. We got there for one reason: We did not give up, because we hold on to that vision of universal health care.

It is no coincidence that the last time we achieved a transformational public health policy for Canadians with the Canada Health Act, it was New Democrats coming off the experience in Saskatchewan with universal health care under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, who pushed a Liberal government in a minority Parliament to do the right thing and create a change that has benefited so many people over the years. Here we find ourselves again in a position where this idea of making lives better for people by providing this care that so many people need is at a point at which we can finally move forward, and we are not going to stop until it becomes a reality. Creating a national dental care plan is about dignity, it is about health care and it is about bloody time.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-31, which is legislation styled as an act respecting cost of living relief measures. I emphasize “styled” as an act respecting cost of living relief measures, because the measures put forward in the bill can at best be described as half-measures and band-aid solutions that fail to address the root causes of the cost of living crisis faced by everyday Canadians.

The bill offers measures by throwing some money here and throwing some money there, all in a desperate effort by a desperate government to make it appear that it is doing something, anything, to address the cost of living crisis, a crisis of this Liberal government's own making. I have to say that it is a bit ironic that, even though the bill is styled as legislation to address the cost of living crisis, it would, in fact, exacerbate the cost of living crisis. It would do so because it comes with a price tag of several billion dollars that would be borrowed and would pour fuel on the inflationary fire that is at the heart of Canada's cost of living crisis.

The cost of living crisis cannot be understated. It is happening. It is real, and Canadians are hurting like never before. Inflation is at a 40-year high. It hit 8.1% in June. Inflation for essentials such as food is even higher. Grocery prices are increasing at a faster rate than we have seen in 40 years, with food inflation hitting 10.8%. When one looks at some dietary essentials, prices have gone up even more. Fresh fruit is up 13.2%. Eggs are up 10.9%. Bread is up 17.6%. Pasta is up 32.4%. I could go on. The average family of four is now spending $1,200 more this year over last for groceries. That is $1,200 more this year over last year just to put food on the table.

While members opposite and their coalition partners in the NDP will undoubtedly pat themselves on the back for handing out $500 rent cheques, which, by the way, most renters would not even qualify for, that is a mere fraction of the increased cost that Canadians are paying just to put food on the table. It underscores the severity of the cost of living crisis and the empty response on the part of this government in tackling it.

How did we get into this mess in the first place? Undoubtedly there are a number of factors, but perhaps the biggest factor is the government's reckless fiscal policies and the government's out-of-control spending. Never in Canadian history have we had a government that has spent more, borrowed more and added more debt. To put it in some context, in the past seven years, the Prime Minister has accumulated more debt than all the debt accumulated in the 148 years of Canada's history leading up to the election of this government.

The Prime Minister has added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. That is staggering. It demonstrates a total lack of prudence and a complete recklessness on the part of the government, which has now resulted in this cost of living crisis with 40-year-high inflation. The government told us not to worry and that it can spend and spend some more because interest rates are low, until they are not.

We saw the highest increase in interest rates in a quarter of a century last summer and interest rates are undoubtedly going to go up even further. The Liberals say they had no choice because of COVID, except when one looks at the facts, the government cannot hide behind COVID as an excuse for its out-of-control spending.

Let us look at some of those facts. To begin with, the government added $100 billion in debt in its first five years in office, before COVID hit. In other words, the government added more debt during the good times, indeed, more debt than any government had accumulated during that period of time, leaving the cupboard bare.

Of the half a trillion dollars in new spending that we have seen over the past two years, this fire hose of spending, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has determined that more than 40% of that is unrelated to COVID. The Liberals say it is because of COVID, yet hundreds of billions of dollars of the half a trillion dollars of new spending, according to the PBO, is unrelated to COVID.

Then, in January, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the stimulus spending was not serving its intended purpose anymore. The PBO effectively called on the government to stop the new spending. What was the government's response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer? It was to do exactly the opposite. The government did the only thing the government knows how to do and that is to spend other people's money, with $71 billion of new spending with Bill C-8, $60 billion in new spending with budget 2022 and now billions more dollars with this inflationary spending bill.

To pay for it all, the government, through the Bank of Canada, did something that no other government has done before, and that is quantitative easing or, in other words, the printing of money. After all of the spending, all of the debt and all of the money printing, there has been a cost. That is the cost of 40-year-high inflation. The more the government spends, the more the cost of living goes up. The more the government spends, the costlier it is for Canadians to purchase goods. Canadians are making less in their paycheques and their purchasing power is being diminished, all because of the government's reckless fiscal policies.

Although we find ourselves in this position of 40-year-high inflation, fuelled by the government's reckless spending, one must say that it ought not have been a surprise to the government that it would find itself in this place. After all, it was quite foreseeable. When we have more money chasing fewer goods, we are going to get inflation. That is called economics 101.

The leader of the official opposition, when he was the shadow minister of finance, called on the government to monitor inflation. He predicted that, if the government did not get spending under control, we would see inflation. What was the response from the finance minister and the Prime Minister? It was to completely ignore the Leader of the Opposition. They said to not worry about inflation and that, if anything, we must be concerned about deflation. How wrong they were.

I guess it is a consequence of having a prime minister who has admitted that he does not think much about monetary policy. Perhaps if he thought a little about monetary policy, we would not find ourselves and the country in this fiscal mess and the consequent cost of living crisis that everyday Canadians are enduring. If the government was serious about addressing the cost of living crisis, it would not be doing what it is doing, but it is doubling down on the same failed approach that got us into this mess in the first place, with even more spending.

What the government should be doing is heeding the advice of the Leader of the Opposition by reining in spending, by restoring a fiscally responsible policy and a sound monetary policy, by finding savings and by rooting out waste in government. There is no shortage of waste to root out.

If the Prime Minister was serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, which begins with tackling the out-of-control spending of the government, the Prime Minister would be doing what the Leader of the Opposition has called on the government to do, which is to introduce legislation such as “pay as you go”, whereby the government must find a dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending.

Some Liberals might scoff at the notion of “pay as you go” legislation, but it has worked. It has worked in the largest democracy and the largest economy in the world, that of the United States. More than 20 years ago, a Republican Congress passed and a Democrat president, Bill Clinton, signed into law “pay as you go” legislation. What was the result? It was a balanced budget for the first time in decades, and the United States paid down more than $400 billion of debt.

Do not expect the current government to implement measures such as this. Do not expect it to rein in spending. Do not expect it to reflect on its failed policies and reverse course, because, on issue after issue, the government's measure of success, as it measures success, is based upon how much it has spent.

We see this with respect to housing. The government has spent billions of dollars, more than $40 billion, on housing. Billions more were announced in budget 2022. What have been the results?

To begin with, the average Canadian is now paying roughly half of their monthly paycheque to cover their monthly housing costs. When the government came to office, the average Canadian was paying roughly 32% of their paycheque. They are now paying 50% of their paycheque. As well, housing prices have doubled. They have gone up 52% in just the past two years.

We have the most land in the G7, and yet we have the fewest houses in the G7 on a per capita basis. The Liberals can pat themselves on the back for spending all this money in housing, but when we look at the results, we have the fewest houses in the G7, among the highest prices, which have doubled under the government's watch, and now Canadians are paying half their paycheques just to put a roof over their heads. I would call that a policy of failure. Canadians certainly have not received good value for all that money that went out the door.

If the government were serious about tackling housing affordability, it, again, would be turning to the Leader of the Opposition, who has put forward a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable so Canadians can purchase a home or rent a unit, by, among other things, tackling supply, increasing supply, by selling off a portion of the federal government's real estate portfolio to build more housing units and by incentivizing municipalities to allow more houses to be built, including tying federal infrastructure dollars to municipalities based upon new units built. These are reasonable solutions to try to address a very real problem that is impacting so many Canadians.

What is the government's solution? To hand out a $500-rent cheque. Its solution is a $500-rent cheque that does not even cover one week's rent in most Canadian cities. Not only that, more than six out of 10 renters will not even qualify for the cheque, and those who do will see whatever short-term benefit of that $500 eviscerated with the Liberals' inflation, rising interest rates and, most significant, planned Liberal tax hikes in the new year.

At a time when Canadians are paying more in taxes than in housing, transportation, food and clothing combined, at a time when Canadians are faced with 40-year-high inflation, the Liberal government has suddenly decided it is a good time to increase payroll taxes and triple the mother of all taxes, the tax on everything, the hated carbon tax, which, by the way, is contributing to inflation.

It demonstrates that the government is not serious about addressing affordability. If it were, as a starting point, it would heed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and cancel the planned tax hikes. It will not, so we have a government that is with one hand handing out some cheques to some Canadians only to take whatever benefit away with the other hand in the way of planned Liberal tax hikes.

This legislation may be styled as an act respecting cost of living relief measures, but this is not a serious plan to address the cost of living; it is more Liberal smoke and mirrors. It is an empty PR exercise in the absence of a real plan. It is why I will be opposing the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, in listening to the Conservatives, people would think that the Liberal Government of Canada is causing rapid inflation around the world, that all the problems, whether it is the pandemic or the war in Europe, have no effect on what is happening in Canada.

The reality is quite different. Canada is concerned about inflation, as we should be. However, in comparison to the United States, the European Union or England, our inflation rate is lower. When we look at the legislation we are debating today, it is about providing dental care for kids under the age of 12. People would not know that if they are listening to the members speaking to the legislation.

Does the member not see the value of providing dental care for children under the age of 12? Does he not believe that the children he represents would benefit from the program being proposed in the legislation?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would note that nine out of 10 provinces already have dental plans and supports for children, so in that respect this is a duplicative measure.

The hon. member talked about the reality of what is happening in Canada. The reality is that we have 40-year high inflation, and it is being fuelled by the government's out-of-control spending. The member is quite right that Canada is not alone. Other countries also have inflation. Why? Because they have pursued the very same policies as the Liberal government. If the same reckless policies are pursued, there will be the same reckless results.

The parliamentary secretary cited the United States. It—

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

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague delivered yet another of the very well-organized speeches we have come to expect from him, so it is clear to me that the Conservatives oppose Bill C‑31. I get it; the bill is very poorly written. However, given that they would rather the federal government essentially cease to exist, I assume they are also against giving money to Quebec so it can improve its own system.

That being the case, is the Conservative Party now against transfers, including upping provincial health transfers to 35%? Are they now against what Quebec and all the provinces want?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mirabel is quite right that the premiers have called on the federal government to increase health transfers to the provinces. The Prime Minister has refused to even sit down with the premiers and has come up with this bill instead of addressing the needs of the provinces.

We do have deficiencies in our health care system that need to be addressed. Those deficiencies were exposed during COVID. What is required is federal leadership working collaboratively with the provinces, and that starts with sitting down with the premiers, something the Prime Minister has failed to do.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear on this point. The CPP and EI are not taxes. These are social programs. They are part of a social safety net that ultimately helps workers.

The opposition party is consistently saying that these are taxes, but these are deductions that help people. The Conservatives are saying that they want to save workers, on average, about $11 a month by cutting their pensions and EI. What they are not saying to people is that this would save corporations billions. They are trying to sell them on something that is not true.

Ultimately we are trying, through the government and our work with it, to create long-lasting equity-driven social programs, like dental care.

There is a difference, but the Conservatives are calling for tax cuts that would benefit a very small group of people. What we are seeing in the U.K. is that this clearly is not working. This is clearly—

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

I have to give the hon. member time to answer.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe has said that these payroll tax hikes are not tax hikes, yet her leader, the member for Papineau, has said that they are. The Government of Canada website states that they are.

This is the reality for everyday Canadians. These payroll tax hikes will mean that the average person will take less of his or her paycheque home. In the new year, people will be taking even less home when, on top of the payroll tax hikes, the government, with the backing of the member for London—Fanshawe and the NDP, is going to triple the carbon tax.

The policy of the NDP is one of taking more money out of the pockets of Canadians and making life less affordable. Our position is to put more money back in the hands of Canadians by cutting taxes, which is a very different approach, indeed.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has been interested in finding common ground in the chamber. Just last week, he proposed and sponsored a bill from the Senate that was passed here unanimously.

In this spirit, when he speaks about the cost of housing, we both agree that much more needs to be done to address increased unaffordability. One issue I hope he could comment on is the rules of the market that currently favour corporate investors, such as real estate investment trusts.

I have two questions. Does the member agree that homes should be for people to live in and not commodities for investors to trade? Is he not similarly concerned that more needs to be done to tilt the market back toward regular Canadians, young people, for example, who are looking to afford rental housing in communities across the country?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate working collaboratively with the member for Kitchener Centre on some issues of common ground.

The root of the problem of which the member speaks goes back to the half a trillion dollars that the government pumped out over the past two years, money that went into the mortgage and finance systems, which was borrowed out to investors who bought up properties and bid up prices. As a consequence, housing prices have gone up 52% because of that policy.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, we just heard a comment from the NDP that suggested that taxpayers just like those big, bad corporations were the bad guys. I would like the member to reflect on this. In essence, every tax dollar comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Could he reflect on where the money comes from for these payroll taxes?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it comes from the earnings of Canadians, who will be taking home less in January, again, thanks to the Liberal and NDP planned payroll tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. They could not have come up with a worse policy at a time of this cost-of-living crisis in the face of 40-year high inflation. By the way, as the—

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

We have time for one last question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest when the member talked about the price on pollution, the carbon tax, as though it was brand new. The reality is that party has run on having a price on pollution in three elections. In fact, the member, under the Conservative banner, also ran in favour of a price on pollution in the last election in 2021.

Could he explain to the House why he is so critical of a plan that he ran on just one year ago?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is simply wrong. I have always opposed the carbon tax. The Conservative Party has always opposed a carbon tax, and we will scrap it if elected.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with my good colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

What are we talking about here this morning in the House of Commons? We are debating Bill C-31. It is a bill that wants to see Canadians get the support they need. What are those supports? We are talking about ensuring that low-income families and children get access to dental care. We are talking about providing a housing benefit for low-income individuals and families, although a one-time housing benefit. Nonetheless, it is some support that is desperately needed for people in our communities.

Where are we? We just heard from the Conservatives that they are opposed to providing low-income families and their children access to dental care. They say we cannot afford it, yet they are completely fine seeing the big oil and gas industry continue to get subsidies from the government. Last year alone, the oil and gas sector made over $147 billion in profits, and the Conservatives want to see that they continue to get subsidies from the government. Meanwhile, they are saying no to children under 12 from families that cannot afford to get dental care.

We have to give our heads a shake and ask what is wrong with this picture. The Conservatives just elected a new leader, and every day we hear in this House each one of the Conservatives get up and make a statement to talk about how they stand on the side of the people and how they have people's backs. Whose backs do they have? It would be those of the wealthy CEOs and big corporations that are making humongous windfall profits—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is confused. The Conservatives are not in government. It is actually the Liberal Party that is in government now.

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

That is not a point of order; that is debate.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is trying to interrupt my speech with a false point of order, but that does not change the fact that the Conservatives are on the side of wealthy CEOs. It does not change the fact that they are not on the side of everyday people who need access to dental care. They are not on the side of children who face tooth decay and cannot access dental care because their families cannot afford it.

In fact, tooth decay is the number one reason children miss school. The highest number of surgeries children face are for tooth decay, and it is not just pain they have to endure. Oral health has huge implications, long-term health implications, and this means we need to treat things early on. However, the Conservatives are not there for them.

The Conservatives voted against the NDP's push to get dental services to everyday Canadians last year, not once but twice. I might add that the Liberals joined them last year and voted against the NDP plan, not once but twice. It was because of 25 New Democrats in the House that we were able to force the government to take action. That is why we have this bill before us today. That is why Canadians who cannot afford access to dental care and who do not have dental services are going to get some help starting this year. That is why children under 12 in low-income families that are eligible will be able to get some support this year.

That is why next year, seniors and people with disabilities will be able to get access to dental services. I have met seniors in my riding and across the province and the country who have told me devastating stories of how they cannot eat because they do not have proper oral health and do not have teeth. Can anyone imagine seniors in their seventies or eighties having to blend their food as though they were infants because they cannot chew their food as they do not have proper teeth? Who in the House would say no to those seniors accessing dental support? That is what is coming next year. The Conservatives are saying no to children this year. Next year, are they going to say no to seniors who need dental care? Are they going to say no to people with disabilities who need dental care? I hope not.

I hope the new leader will wake up, stand on the side of people and stop saying we cannot afford it. What we cannot afford is to continue to allow wealthy CEOs to get their fat bonuses. What we cannot afford is allowing this situation to continue when big corporations have huge windfalls in profit during a pandemic period. We need to put in an excessive profit tax to support these kinds of programs and to support people.

The Conservatives will say that they are there for people on housing. We just heard them talk about how they have this great plan. Really? They talk about a plan, yet they do not talk about the need for affordability. That is where people are at. It is not just any supply. It is not about luxury condos. It is about people who are paying 30% or more of their total incomes for their housing costs. One in five Canadians is in that situation right now and needs help right now.

It was the Conservatives under the Mulroney government and then the Liberals under the Chrétien government who axed housing programs. In fact, the Liberals outright cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. That is why we have a housing crisis before us. The $500 housing subsidy is a small measure and a good gesture. It is something the NDP was able to force the government to take action on, and I am glad about that, but more needs to be done. Make no mistake about that.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals need to support the NDP's push to ensure that real estate investment trusts stop getting the tax benefits they are enjoying. We need to stop the financialization of housing. We need to stop treating housing as a stock market. We need to make sure that housing is there for people as a basic human right. That is what we need to do.

We need to make sure that the government stops helping big corporations make more and more money. These investors are making more money and getting a tax benefit from it without a return to the people. That is what we have to do and that is what we have to talk about. The Conservatives are so petty that they even say low-income individuals and families should not even get a one-time $500 housing benefit at this time of unprecedented inflation. Who does that?

Look at what is going on in the streets. In my riding of Vancouver East, we have people who are homeless and living in tents. They need help and support and they need it now. Let us focus on the needs of the people and put them ahead of wealthy corporations and wealthy CEOs. Let us make sure they get the help they need.

The New Democrats will continue to push for more and fight for more.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions.

No one on this side disagrees with the propensity and need to help provide dental care for those who are the most vulnerable, but the NDP position seems really focused on a federally administered program. We know that health care is a provincial domain. We know that many organizations and programs are run out of provincial health co-operation. Why does the NDP want this to absolutely be a federally administered program, beyond the obvious choices of indigenous communities and military families?

The second piece is on CEOs. It is very clear the NDP is concerned about corporate profits. The leader of the NDP has almost made it seem as though CEOs are rigging the system. Does she believe that all corporate leaders in this country are rigging the system or are there some in particular? I worry about that broad characterization of all corporate leaders in this country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the delivery of health care, it is a shared jurisdictional issue. Under the Canada Health Act, this should be afforded to all Canadians.

On the dental health care plan that the NDP is pushing forward, it was something that Tommy Douglas dreamt of 60 years ago. We are trying to complete that dream with this. We want it delivered, and the federal government can and should deliver the service. At the same time, it should also increase transfer payments. That is what it must do to ensure the delivery of cohesive health care services for all Canadians.

On the second question around bonuses for wealthy CEOs and big corporations, it is time for them to pay their share. That is why we are calling for an excessive profiteering tax, which the UN Secretary-General is calling for across the globe.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, last week, I gave a speech about Bill C‑31 in which I said that it does provide some relief.

What does my colleague like about the proposed temporary solution to the dental care issue? Quebec has tackled it, and all the provinces really need to do likewise.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the delivery of health care is a shared jurisdictional issue. This is the first step. This is not the only step. This is the bottom and not the ceiling. We will continue to take action to force the government to deliver support to Canadians. That is what we are doing here. Without us, they would not even get this dental care service for those 12 and under, and then next year for seniors, people with disabilities and people 18 and under. They would not get this one-time housing benefit.

We will continue to push the government to act. We will demand action and force the government to provide support to Canadians.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying how much I appreciate the member for Vancouver East for her advocacy in addressing the root causes of the housing crisis. I wonder if she could share a bit more specifically with respect to corporate investors and the extent to which there is preferential tax treatment for them, as they are gutting out the core affordable housing supply, which we so desperately need.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, what we are seeing in the housing crisis is this: We are losing housing stock faster than we can build it.

The reality is that wealthy investors are coming in and buying up the stock, and in that process, under the real estate investment trusts, for example, they get preferential tax treatment. They do not have to pay taxes at the corporate rate, so these investors are getting a windfall, and we have to stop that practice.

Housing should not be treated as a commodity. It should be ensured that it will be there to house people. That is why the NDP is calling for the government to put a moratorium on the financialization of housing, support non-profits to get into the market to buy the stock and stop the preferential tax treatment.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I learn so much from my colleague from Vancouver East about housing. She is such an expert on housing. We all should listen to her and hear the call that she brings to this place.

I am going to start today with a bit of a story because we are in the House debating this bill and the need for dental care for Canadians, which would bring some relief for Canadians who are struggling right now. I have told this story before, but I want to share it again.

I spend a lot of time door knocking in my constituency. It is very important for members of Parliament to speak to their constituents as often as possible to find out what those concerns and issues are. One day I knocked on a door in one of my neighbourhoods. It was a pretty affluent neighbourhood. I knocked on the door and was talking to a gentleman who was telling me about the fact that the issue of dental care was a massive issue for him. He had a dental plan, and his children had access to dental care. His family was fine, but his concern was for the children who were going to school with his daughter who did not have those things.

I think about that a lot when I stand in this place. I think a lot about the fact that, as parliamentarians, our job is not to get things to make our lives better. Our job here is not to do things to benefit ourselves and those who are our friends. Our job as parliamentarians, and the reason I am a New Democrat, is to make lives better for all Canadians so we can help folks who are struggling. That is our job in this place, so I think about that gentleman an awful lot and the fact that his concern was around others. I am so proud to represent people like him in Edmonton Strathcona, those who care about their neighbours.

I am a mother. I have children. They are not as young as they once were, which is the way growing up works. I do want to acknowledge that I come to work in this place and I have this incredible privilege to ensure that my children will always have access to dental care. That is something that all of us in this place need to reflect on, and I am going to go back to that in a few minutes.

Our public health care system is full of holes. It does not make sense that our public health care system does not include dental care. It does not make sense that our public health care system does not include pharmacare or mental health care. At what point did we decide that parts of our bodies needed to be protected and covered and other parts did not? It does not make any sense.

It does not make sense to pretend that our teeth are not actually part of our body. From a health perspective, it does not make sense, and from an economic and fiscal perspective, it does not make sense. If I had the power right now to fix those gaps in our health care system and I could do that today, I would. It is one of the most important things, as parliamentarians, we should be doing.

Today, we have an opportunity to fix one of those gaps. I am incredibly proud to support Bill C-31 to get dental care for some of the people in Canada who need it the most, children under 12. If we do our job in this place, we could get half a million kids the dental care they desperately need. We can get them that dental care. We can get it for them and for all kids, not just the kids in families that can afford it. We have known for decades that dental care belongs in our health care system. It has been 58 years since the Royal Commission on Health Services called for dental care to be included in our public system.

I have said this before as well, but the most common surgery performed on preschool children at most pediatric hospitals in Canada is for the treatment of dental decay and the health implications that stem from that. We are asking families in this country to make heartbreaking decisions on protecting their children's health and their teeth or paying their bills, paying for groceries and paying for gas for their vehicles. That is a decision we should never be asking people in Canada to make.

I said earlier that I know that I stand in this place as somebody who has a great deal of privilege. I have a wonderful salary. I have a wonderful benefits program. My husband has a well-paying job. He has a dental program. My children will never have to worry about their teeth or about having dental care accessible to them. I feel deeply fortunate for that.

All of us sitting in the House should feel deeply fortunate for that. The dental plans that we have cover us and our families. What kind of people would we be if we did not want all children in the country to have the things our children have? What kind of person would I be if I could look at my daughter and say, “Thank goodness that my daughter Keltie has dental care,” and then look at someone else's daughter and not want that for them? How could I do that?

I will tell members that there are Conservatives sitting in the House right now who have already voted twice against dental care for children. I want them to know that I see them. Canadians see them.

Conservatives voted against health care 50 years ago. They voted against one of the things that Canadians see as fundamental to our identity and fundamental to who we are as a country. Fifty years ago, Conservatives voted against that, and now they are voting against dental care. They are fine having dental care for their families, and they are fine having dental care for themselves, but they do not want dental care for the children across the country in their constituencies and in their ridings. I have no idea what they must say to the people in their ridings to justify this. I have no idea how they can say, “For me, it is great. For you, not so much.”

It is horrendous. All children deserve dental care. Every MP who voted against dental care in the last Parliament, and I will acknowledge that that included Liberals, is saying that what they have access to, what they are entitled to, others are not. That is disgusting.

Another thing that I want to bring up within the bill, Bill C-31, is the support for rent. Winter is coming. We know that. Winter comes with so many more challenges for vulnerable people in Edmonton.

This year is going to be, as we will imagine, harder than most because everything costs so much more. We already have a homeless crisis in my city and in cities across the country. Things are getting worse.

The support in the bill for renters and for low-income people who rely on the GST rebate is really not that much: $500 for renters and a temporary doubling of the rebate. It is not that much money overall, but the difference in one's life, when one is living on the edge, would be enormous. The opportunity to prevent people from becoming homeless and to help people who are really struggling right now is enormous. We have to do what we can for these people.

The support in the bill would be the difference between holding onto a place to live and becoming homeless for hundreds and maybe even thousands of Canadians. It would be the difference between buying groceries and going without. It would be the difference between hope and despair.

People are struggling to pay for everything right now. Groceries are more expensive. Rent is more expensive. Gas is more expensive. I know that it can feel overwhelming for many Canadians right now. That is what these programs are about. Universal dental care, and social programs like it, raises people up. They give people opportunities.

After all, that is ultimately what the democratic government is supposed to be. It is supposed to be people coming together to make laws, make rules and make programs that create a stronger, healthier and happier Canada.

I like to hope that we are all in this place wanting to make a positive difference in our communities and for our constituents. I know we do not all agree on what that looks like, but I believe in the power and the equity of social programs delivered by government, and the power of people lifting each other up. I am proud today to say that, because of the work of New Democrats, Bill C-31 would do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious about the member's thoughts on something the member for St. Albert—Edmonton mentioned when he was speaking a few moments ago. He talked about dental care, and if I heard him correctly he said that nine out of 10 children under the age of 12 already have some form of insurance or a way to have their dental care paid for.

To me, that would be an argument why one would make it universal, because almost everybody already has it. However, the argument was almost being made that if nine out of 10 already have it then it is only one out of 10 who do not. I am curious about the member's comments on that. Does she think, when we get to a certain threshold, that in order to provide that equality we do need to make something like this universal?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not understand where the Conservatives get some of their data and information from. We do have a program in Alberta. If a family is living just pennies above the poverty line, if someone is making just pennies above minimum wage, they will get some support for dental care, but realistically, the vast majority of Canadians who are living on under $90,000 a year cannot access dental care.

Yes, I agree with him that one in 10 is too many, but I do not think it is one in 10. The number of people who are not able to access dental care is much greater in this country. Strangely, the Conservatives think that about all kinds of things, that we should not worry because it is covered. It is not covered, which is why we need to put this legislation in place. I do not understand.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the rental subsidy that is included in Bill C-31, it is $500. In my riding, for a two-bedroom condo or a very small two-bedroom home, we are effectively talking about one week of rent. This is just a patchwork. It is giving false hope to people that Bill C-31 is going to solve all their problems.

If we add up the cost of inflation to basic necessities like home heating and groceries, we are talking about $1,200 annually. This money will be completely gobbled up unless we get inflation under control.

The member is from Edmonton, where inflation on rent is not as bad as Calgary's, but does she really think one week's worth of a rental subsidy is actually giving hope to renters that the government will get national inflation under control?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member is being very thoughtful, but is his question basically whether we should give them nothing because we are not giving them enough? Is that the expectation? What I am seeing is that we have a program that was not put in place by the New Democrats, because of course the New Democrats would have done this much differently and would have had a much more robust program for folks, but this is still some support for people who need it.

For people living on the edge, as I mentioned in my comments, these are folks for whom $500 will make a significant difference. I do not understand why the Conservatives would say $500 is not going to help families who are struggling. I do not understand how they can look at that additional add to one's budget and say it will not help. Of course it will help. It will not do enough, and my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned that this is the floor and not the ceiling, but it is help for people on the edge.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, any time we vote on bills in this place, we in the Bloc Québécois are always careful to vote with our conscience. There may be times when we vote against certain bills not because of their principle, but because we respect jurisdictions.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. I am concerned about this temporary solution, given how vulnerable people are. As we have said from the beginning, we support providing this assistance, but how are we going to ensure that people who need assistance for both housing and dental care can access this money?

That is what worries me.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have worked quite closely on certain files and I know her to be an excellent member of Parliament who certainly chooses to vote with her conscience.

This is an urgent issue for which we can get some help out to Canadians quickly. We brought forward dental care in the previous Parliament. If that had been supported at that time, we would have had this in place already. The fact that it has taken—

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

Debate.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, it is really a true honour and a pleasure to speak to Bill C-31. For my wonderful constituents back in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who are watching, today's debate is on the legislative framework the NDP has forced the Liberal government to bring in to establish an interim dental benefit for children under the age of 12 and also to provide an important subsidy to people who are struggling to pay their rent.

It is a moment of great pride because, in the last election, dental care was a very key focus of mine during the campaign. I am filled with gratitude to be able to stand in this House and tell constituents that we are actually delivering on something that would make a real difference.

I have been here for seven years now, and one thing I have learned about the House of Commons is that memories can be short in this place, so I think it is important that we take a little walk down memory lane and set the table of this debate with what happened just last year in the previous 43rd Parliament. I have to give credit to our former colleague Jack Harris, the former New Democratic member of Parliament for St. John's East, because it was last year in the spring session that he brought forward Motion No. 62.

Motion No. 62 called upon the federal government to put in a dental care plan as soon as possible for families earning less than $90,000, as an interim measure. We debated that in May and June, and when it came to a vote on June 16 of last year, unfortunately it did not pass the House. In fact, the final vote tally was 285 votes against and 36 in support. I will acknowledge the 10 Liberal MPs who did find it in their conscience to see this as a benefit and vote with us, but the vast majority of the Liberal Party and all of the Conservatives voted against it.

What a difference a year makes. Here we are now in this 44th Parliament, and we are actually debating a real legislative agenda, a government bill, that hopefully will make its way to committee soon and then through the legislative process so that we can get this established. It would establish, as an interim measure, an important dental care benefit for children under the age of 12. That would be expanded next year to include children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities. Of course our plan is to have the full thing running by the end of this Parliament, the 44th, so that all families earning under $90,000 can access much-needed dental care benefits.

If we were to take a poll of words used in this chamber, we all know that “inflation” is occupying every member's mind right now. We hear it constantly from our constituents. It is all over the media. We can see it every time we go and fill up our car or go shopping for food. The cost of living is becoming unbearable for too many families, and that includes those in my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

However, what is not being spoken of enough is its primary causes. Not enough people in this place are talking about how corporate greed is driving inflation. I listen to my Conservative colleagues complain about the high price of gas, but they say nothing about the massive corporate profits that are happening in the oil and gas sector or about how those companies are profiting off the backs of working families in their ridings. Instead, they want to continue the argument over carbon pricing.

It is a position the Conservatives once supported under former leader Preston Manning. They briefly flirted with it in the previous election before abandoning it. They want to continue having that conversation, but they also do not talk about the inflationary effects of climate change. I live in British Columbia. Last year, just months apart, we had devastating wildfires and catastrophic floods that cut off Vancouver from the rest of the country. They caused billions of dollars of damage and we are still, to this day, trying to clean up from them.

The Conservatives' answer is to try to target people's employment insurance and the Canada pension plan. They, incorrectly in my view, call those “payroll taxes”. I do not know of any other tax that pays me a deferred wage when I retire like the Canada pension plan does. I do not know why one would go after a retirement vehicle that so many Canadians depend on for their retirements and so many Canadians who find themselves with a disability depend on, or an insurance program that is there for when one loses their job.

Granted, employment insurance does have a lot of problems. Certainly our party, the NDP, has been very vocal about those problems. However, the concept of the program is a sound one, even if it does need some drastic improvements. The concept of having to pay a little into an insurance program for that day when a person may lose their job through no fault of their own is a sound concept. That program and CPP are programs that we need to build upon to lift each other up and to truly support Canadians who are in need.

I want to stay focused on Bill C-31 and the need for dental care. It is very important in this country. If we look at the statistics, population-wide, millions of Canadians have reported skipping going to the dentist because of the cost. There has been a lot of talk in this place about too much money chasing too few goods. I would agree with the first part: There is too much money. There is too much money lining corporate bank accounts, and there is too much money being paid out in bonuses to CEOs. This is at a time when people are making incredibly tough choices at the grocery store.

I will make no secret of the fact that, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I hope my colleagues will join me to investigate the corporate profits that exist in the grocery sector, a sector of which more than 80% is dominated by three companies. However, we are not paying enough attention to how that is driving inflation. We could look at the markups that are going on with food. They are rising far faster than the general average.

With dental care, this is a moral issue for me. We are debating an amendment today that was put forward by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, a Conservative MP, which would essentially kill Bill C-31. That is where the Conservatives are today. Their big response to dental care is to move a motion to kill the bill outright. What they do not talk about enough is the fact that Conservative MPs, like every MP in this place, gets to enjoy the benefits of taxpayer-funded dental care and their immediate family members get that. Essentially their motto in this place is “it is good for me but not for thee”. They will not fight to provide their constituents with the same level of benefits they enjoy as sitting members of Parliament, and I need to call them out on that because that is shameful.

It is absolutely shameful that we live in a country where families are having to make that difficult choice of whether they can afford to send their kids to see the dentist. We know that poor oral health is an indicator of worse health problems. If those problems are not looked after at an early age, if they are not detected at an early stage, they get worse and they cost our system more money. The answer is in preventative health care. It is in making sure that kids can access those services.

I know that I am in the final minute of my speech, and I just want to end on a number: 25. There are 25 NDP MPs, less than 10% of the seats in this House, and today we are debating a bill that we campaigned on. We are talking about an agenda that we have been driving. I will say this to my constituents: If 25 New Democrats in this place can punch above our weight and get this kind of action going, which would benefit so many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, imagine what a lot more could do. With that, I will conclude.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to disagree with my colleague. I think the number in the House right now is just perfect and we do not need any more.

I want to ask the member two questions. Going back to dental care, I understand that the NDP and the government want to make sure the federal government is helping to provide support for dental care. It seems as though the NDP wants it to be federally administered. I am not against the idea of the Government of Canada putting money in, similar to what we did on child care, to establish a national framework, but it does not seem that is the NDP position.

Could the member explain his view, the NDP's view, on why he wants it to be federally administered as opposed to federally funded on the outcomes?

The second piece is around the CEOs. I respect the fact that the member has brought a motion in our committee on agriculture. I want to go to the message from the leader of the NDP that went out four days ago, saying, “they've rigged the system to take wealth away from you.” I understand if the NDP wants to put a policy in place that charges CEOs more, but is he worried about the narrative that we are targeting CEOs in a reckless way that does not necessarily respect all corporate leadership in this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard the member's question before, as it has been asked of some of my colleagues. I will start with the first part on the federal role in health care delivery.

I am a member of the federal House of Commons, and I am doing what I can in this place. Yes, I understand that provinces have jurisdiction over health care, but it is a shared jurisdiction and we need to look no further than the federal Canada Health Act.

Different provinces have different benefits, but a Canadian who lives in Prince Edward Island should have the same access to services as someone who lives in my home province of B.C. The federal government is the one and only government that has the ability to put in a program to ensure those benefits have equality.

On the member's second question, CEOs get bonuses for delivering higher profits. I am trying to make the connection between higher corporate profits and the inflation that so many Canadians are suffering. We need a parliamentary inquiry into this. Therefore, I will continue with the narrative that we need to look at corporations, CEOs and the status quo.

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

Madam Speaker, I am puzzled by my hon. member's speech. NDP members have said that they want dental care for all Canadians who currently do not have coverage, so I do not understand why they have agreed to this program that only covers children under 12 in some families, when many provinces already cover that, and that the rest will be post-2025 after the election when the Liberals do not need the NDP anymore. Why did he support it?

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

Madam Speaker, to use a poker analogy, “You play the cards you are dealt.” We were dealt a minority government courtesy of the Liberals. We are going to use our legislative agenda in this place to deliver.

In answer to her question, absolutely, our goal one day is a universal program. This is the floor, not the ceiling. What I will say, though, is that children in her riding, and children under the age of 18 next year and seniors, are all going to benefit from this. I hope she finds it in her heart to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to make an observation. Until last spring, only one party in the House was concerned about inflation: the Bloc Québécois.

For years now, inflation in health care costs has been running at 6%. Year after year, the Bloc Québécois has fought for what the provinces and Quebec want, specifically increases in health transfers, because this inflation prevents us from providing care to our people. It has existed for years in the health care system.

I would like to ask my colleague why he is not prepared to support increasing health transfers up to 35% of the cost of the system. That must be the top priority for anyone who cares about inflation and about people.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree strongly with my colleague. The Bloc is not the only party that has been fighting for this. In fact, my constituent, Premier John Horgan of British Columbia, was recently the chair of the Council of the Federation. He was there leading all the premiers in asking for more health transfers from the federal government. I am in lockstep with what he has been asking for. If my hon. colleague from the Bloc checks the parliamentary record, he will see that New Democrats have been very clear in this place on the need for stronger health transfers from the feds to the provinces.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I disagree with the comment that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford made earlier about the Conservatives introducing an amendment to kill the bill, although I appreciate him giving that credit to them. What they are really doing is introducing an amendment so they can start to put up speakers again and reset the speaker roster on this to run out the clock.

Despite the fact that Conservatives are against this, that does not mean they are ready to vote for it. Why would they ever do that when they can use this as an opportunity to endlessly burn away the hours, which we regard as being so precious in this place to debate important legislation? What is more important to the Conservatives than going against dental care? What is more important to the Conservatives than doing anything for Canadians? What is absolutely paramount to them is to ensure that the legislative process in this place cannot function. That is why we are here today, in my opinion, to talk about this amendment, which basically would do nothing other than effectively vote against the bill itself.

Nonetheless, this is a very important bill. I want to congratulate my colleagues in the NDP for being so passionate about this and for bringing it forward. I certainly would agree with them that they have done a good job of playing their role in the House of Commons. They have identified the fact that they do hold the balance of power. Rather than using that in an obstructionist fashion, like the members from across the way, they have used it as a way to determine how we can do good things for Canadians that line up with their values and priorities. That is why I have no problem in allowing them to take some credit for what is being proposed today. Would I go as far as to say that the NDP forced the government into doing this? I think that is a bit of a stretch, but I respect the fact that its members are using the terminology they believe best fits the narrative of the day.

What this really comes down to is the fact that currently 55% of Canadians have their dental care coverage through some form of private insurance policy; 6% are insured through some form of public insurance policy, perhaps for the most vulnerable in our communities; and the balance, 39%, are literally paying out of their pockets for dental care. Among that 39%, there is a portion of those people who have family incomes of $90,000 or less. They are the ones really being targeted in this.

We recognize the fact that we need take care of the most vulnerable in our communities. That is an underlying principle of just about all of the legislation that has come forward from this side of the House. We understand that when we build up individuals who are struggling, when we give opportunities and when we provide incentives to participate in the economic activity and the social well-being of our country, it is for the benefit of not just those individuals but, indeed, for all Canadians. That is why I personally think that this is such important legislation.

I would note, though, that it is not just about helping to pay for the cost of dental care when people need to see the dentist. We have to recognize that all provinces and territories will cover emergency dental services. If someone goes into a hospital and it is directly related to that person's health and that service is needed right away, that will be covered by the province and/or territory.

This is important because its is about investing in the future. Rather than waiting until it jeopardizes somebody's health, we should be helping to pay for preventative measures. That is what a dental care program would do.

The reality of the situation is that a lot of folks who this would apply to, people in families that earn less than $90,000 a year, are going to make tough decisions when it comes to what to spend their money on. If they have to make the decision between getting a regular checkup at the dentist or getting a cavity filled that perhaps is not really bothering them, they might just push it aside and instead spend that money on something they need more.

The result of not having that preventive work done up front is that they end up in a situation where they are in much more dire need and the costs become a lot more expensive. In some cases, they end up in emergency rooms where the provinces and territories will take care of them in any event. My point is that there is an opportunity here to help people with the preventive assistance to ensure they do not have those problems later on.

In the bigger picture of affordability, I find it very interesting that Conservatives who come in here on a daily basis and talk about Canadians who are struggling do not seem to be interested in any of the programs that we have put forward to assist those Canadians, with the exception of the increased GST rebate. They have said that they will support that, but they have not given any indication whatsoever about when they will allow a vote on the bill to take place. With the exception of that particular legislation, the Conservatives do not seem to be interested in affordability as it relates to genuinely assisting people. They just seem to want to come in here and give grandiose speeches about why this government has made life so difficult for people, without presenting any concrete ideas or building on any concrete policies that have been brought forward by this side of the House.

I find it very rich and very ironic that the Conservative seem to be willing to turn their backs on those who need it the most, yet in question period, which is in less than an hour from now, I am sure we will hear them repeatedly asking about why we are not helping or not doing more those individuals. That is the irony and the reality of what takes place on this.

I am very happy to see this legislation come forward. I am very glad to see that the governing party is able to work with the NDP to advance initiatives that are in both of our interests and, indeed, in this case, something for which the NDP has been fighting for many years. I am glad to see we are at the place where we can work together, because it is always nice to tell Canadians that we have worked with other parties in a minority government to get things done.

The fact is that if we look back historically, a lot of the big decisions in our country were made during minority governments, such as health care and the CPP. Even the creation of our flag was done during a minority government. I am very happy we are able to do this with the NDP.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member with respect to the government's plan to triple the carbon tax. He is laughing because he thinks it is funny. Canadians who are struggling to afford gas, groceries and home heating do not think it is funny.

The government is intent on tripling the carbon tax, and Canadians are already struggling under the impact of the carbon tax. Will the member acknowledge that the purpose of the carbon tax is to raise the price of gas? The argument for a carbon tax by those who support it is that they want a higher price of gas to discourage people from driving. Of course, the gas price is influenced by a variety of different factors, but one of those factors is the carbon tax, which has been put in place, by design, to increase the price of gas.

Will the member acknowledge that his government's carbon tax plan is designed to raise the price of gas?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did start laughing when the member asked that question. Why? Because we have a bill that is about dental care specifically, Not only that, the member moved an amendment to the bill on this very legislation. I then spoke for 10 minutes on the legislation, as it relates to dental care and his amendment on it. Then he stands and asks me a question that is completely unrelated to the bill, and he cannot understand why I might find that to be slightly humorous.

The Conservatives just do not want to talk about making life affordable for Canadians. They want to talk about issues that are not within the realm of what is actually going on in the room. They want to divert completely away from the substance of what we are talking about.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to know that when it comes down to it, no one is against children receiving dental care or low-income people receiving help to pay their rent. That is why we were in favour of the bill at first reading.

However, I have a question for him. Will his government be open-minded and consider transferring the money for this program to the provinces and Quebec?

Obviously I am referring to the fact that Quebec already has a dental insurance program. It is not perfect, of course, but it could be improved.

There is already a structure in place. Will the government insist on imposing another, or will it respect the jurisdictions?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will not insist on anything. I will let the committee do its work and look at the question the member is raising. Am I open to it? I am, especially when we talk about health care, which is so complex and is done between the federal and provincial governments. I am certainly open to letting those discussions take place and seeing where they land.

The reality of the situation is this. We want to ensure the money we give to provinces to help with this kind of thing, whether given to them directly or through the CRA, which this is proposing to do, actually gets into the hands of those who need it, helps with affordability, and does not allow provinces to take it and not use it for that intended purpose but rather for subsidizing what they are already spending.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing that has been missing from the dialogue today is a conversation about what dental care and this program will put back into the entire health care system. We know from the doctors, the nurses and the patients that our health care system is struggling. Even I do not have a family doctor. There are a lot of things we need to do to grow that. Dental care can save a lot of money. I would like to hear what the member has to say with respect to helping our overall health care system.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was one of the things I was trying to touch on in my speech. If we invest in people early on, before their dental issues become extremely severe and require emergency medical attention, we are investing in our health care system. We are relieving some of the stress that will come later down the road for the health care professionals who would otherwise have to deal with it as a result of our not investing or not helping to prevent issues from arising in the future. One thing we have to consider in the cost analysis of this is the savings we will get down the road as a result of investing in people now.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the members opposite have finally become aware of a problem that is obvious to every Canadian except for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Inflation is a problem. Canadians are being hurt by it. Liberal government policies are making things worse.

I am pleased that the Liberals have finally realized inflation is a problem for our country. I am less pleased with their solution. Apparently, they do not understand that their attempts to fix the problem, a problem they created with reckless government spending, will only make things worse.

I can understand that there is confusion across the aisle when I say that. How can I say their well-meaning plan will not only not work but will make things worse? This does not make sense to them. For those who truly believe that budgets balance themselves, I can understand that the concept of inflation is also a little difficult to understand. Therefore, perhaps we should take a look first at just what we are talking about. According to Wikipedia:

...inflation is a general increase in the prices of goods and services in an economy. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation corresponds to a reduction in the purchasing power of money.

Wikipedia also tells us:

High or unpredictable inflation rates are regarded as harmful to an overall economy. They add inefficiencies in the market, and make it difficult for companies to budget or plan long-term. Inflation can act as a drag on productivity as companies are forced to shift resources away from products and services to focus on profit and losses from currency inflation. Uncertainty about the future purchasing power of money discourages investment and saving. Inflation can also impose hidden tax increases. For instance, inflated earnings push taxpayers into higher income tax rates unless the tax brackets are indexed to inflation.

With high inflation, purchasing power is redistributed from those on fixed nominal incomes, such as some pensioners whose pensions are not indexed to the price level, towards those with variable incomes whose earnings may better keep pace with the inflation. This redistribution of purchasing power will also occur between international trading partners. Where fixed exchange rates are imposed, higher inflation in one economy than another will cause the first economy's exports to become more expensive and affect the balance of trade. There can also be negative effects to trade from an increased instability in currency exchange prices caused by unpredictable inflation.

This is Wikipedia. It is common information there, but the difference is that some understand it and some do not. Some refuse to even look at it or understand it. To put it simply, in terms that even a Liberal can understand, inflation harms the economy and hurts the people of Canada. Government policies should not make inflation higher. That should be a common understanding. It is simple and should be something that we all should live by.

This now brings us to the Liberals' response to inflation, which is to create Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing. The Liberals, with their imperfect understanding of inflation, are trying to make things better. They are ignoring the economic experts who say that increasing government spending adds to inflation. The Liberals' solution does not fix the problem, but will just make it worse.

It may come as a surprise to the Liberals, but their children's dental care is not a high priority for many Canadian families these days. Parents wish they could be more concerned about dental health and the state of their children's teeth, but when they are having difficulties finding the money to feed their children they are not spending much time booking dentist appointments.

The Prime Minister, as we discovered a couple of years ago, does not know the cost of a pound of bacon. Just to let him know, it has gone up again. Grocery prices are up by 10.8% on average, rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. Fish is up 10%. Butter is up 16%. Milk is up 21%. Eggs are up 10%. Margarine is up 37%. Bread, rolls and buns are up 17%. Dry or fresh pasta is up 32%. Fresh fruit is up by 13%. Oranges are up by 11%. Apples are up by 18%. Coffee is up by 14%. Soup is up by 19%. Lettuce is up by 12%. Potatoes are up by 10%. A family of four are spending an average of $1,200 more a year for groceries than they did in 2021. As well as record food prices, they have to deal with increases in heating, gasoline and housing costs.

Canadians are having to make hard choices about whether to put gas in the car in order to get to work in the morning, or put food on the table. This should not be happening in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The government does not seem to understand that it is part of the problem. It says to spend, spend, spend and hopes that the problem will go away. If we ask any economist, they will tell us a government cannot curtail inflation by spending.

The Liberal government is driving up the cost of living. The government's proposals do little to solve the problem. Proposals on dental care and housing will provide jobs for civil servants, but will not help most Canadians. The GST rebate will provide some welcome relief, but it is short-term and will not address the real problem: Inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rate in nearly 40 years, and that rebate will not pay for very many groceries.

As government spending increases, the deficit rises and the national debt increases. Today's spending will be paid for by our children and grandchildren, who will not thank us for our actions today.

If the Prime Minister was serious about making life more affordable for workers, families and seniors, he would cancel his planned carbon tax increases immediately. The Prime Minister is increasing the carbon tax on Canadians by three times, tripling it, and he is suggesting that he wants to help Canadians. If he wanted to help Canadians, he would not increase the carbon tax three times.

Canadian families are struggling with rising costs due to Liberal inflation. Now is not the time to raise their tax burden and make their lives worse. Instead of freezing taxes, the government is raising taxes on people who are struggling to make ends meet. Inflation is making groceries unaffordable for many people. The government is making things worse with its taxes and inflationary spending.

Those things combined are raising the stress on millions of Canadians. Many are turning to food banks as the only way to feed their families. Here in Ottawa, inflation is being blamed for record-high food bank usage. Food banks in Toronto say they are facing the highest demand in their history. In Edmonton, the University of Alberta's Campus Food Bank reported 200 new clients in September alone.

Raising the tax burden on Canadians so they have to turn to food banks to feed their children may be the Liberal policy, but it is not the policy of a compassionate government. Last year, the Prime Minister asked Canadians to forgive him for not thinking of the monetary policy. Given the fiscal trouble individual Canadians and the entire nation face, I do not think we are going to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, whether it was during private members' hour, when a member raised the issue of the price on pollution, or here, where we are talking about dental care for children under the age of 12, as the bill is all about providing insurance for those children, the Conservatives just want to talk about the carbon tax, or the price on pollution.

Do the Conservative members of Parliament recall that just last year, every one of them was knocking on doors saying that if people elect a Conservative government, they are going to have a price on pollution? What a flip-flop. Within a year, the Conservative Party is against a price on pollution. They are going backwards. As every other Canadian is thinking more about the environment and moving forward, the Conservatives are taking a flip to the back.

Does the hon. member not realize that the Conservative Party, and he in particular, along with other candidates, actually campaigned in favour of a price on pollution in the last election? Why are they breaking that promise?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thought bringing the definition of inflation to the member and his government would make him understand exactly what he is doing. What his government is doing is bringing in taxes at a time of inflation and spending money where it should not be spending. It is putting fuel on the fire at the wrong time.

If I had known that I would get from him that kind of question, I would never have brought up the explanation and description of inflation itself. The members opposite are putting in the wrong policy and have the wrong approach at the wrong time. They should think otherwise.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, not so long ago, my colleagues in the Conservative Party seemed to agree with increasing health transfers for all the provinces and Quebec. I seem to recall that there was support from the Conservative benches. I am not sure whether it is the change in leadership, but ever since there has been a new leader, we no longer hear them talk about this.

I would like to know: Do they agree with increasing health transfers for the provinces and Quebec to improve coverage for our constituents?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would advise the hon. member to wait for our platform on this issue, because everyone wants a better health care system for Canadians, all of us. No one would disagree on that. This is just about how we are going to approach that and how to bring better quality health care to Canadians. That will always remain the debate among all parties. The one that has a better approach is, I think, the one that is going to grab the attention of Canadians.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to share with the House that I recently had some constituents come into my office. It was a larger family. One of the children was complaining again and again of having some pain. When we dug down a little more, we found out that the reason this child was in pain was an infected tooth. The family was very ashamed to share that they did not have the money to afford to get help.

This is not an unusual story in this country. We know that there are a lot of families out there today that cannot make sure their kids get very basic dental care. They are working hard but they do not have the resources to get it done. It is hard to be someone who loves their child but is not able to get them the support they need. Often, when they do, they have to take them to the hospital and the only option is to have a tooth completely removed.

I am wondering if the hon. member could please explain to Canadians with children under 12 why they do not deserve health care for their mouths.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the drama show of the NDP, it is trying to take credit for everything that is happening today, especially with this bill. NDP members say they just forced the government to do this.

Everybody cares about the health of Canadians. It does not matter what that aspect is, whether it is dental or other health care things. Every one of us has stories from our own riding when it comes to that. Let us not make this a drama.

We are saying there is an approach to policy that is maybe taking a long time, and right now the policy is short of solving the problem. This is the argument. We are not arguing whether we would love for all Canadians to have health care or dental care. What we are arguing about is the approach, the cost and how this approach can truly solve the problem, instead of making the hopes of some Canadians high when the reality—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing. This legislation would help address some of the concerns that many of my constituents have shared with me around the rising cost of living and the increasing difficulty they are facing in making ends meet.

All of us in this House and in this country are seized with the issue of inflation. Indeed, the world is seized with the issue of inflation because it is a global phenomenon. Forces like high oil prices ripple through the supply chain and so do supply chain disruptions, leading to a scarcity of goods and rising prices for them. The economy is still recovering from the pandemic. We are all feeling the pinch.

Canada has done better than most G7 countries and is doing better than our American neighbours and peers, such as the United Kingdom and Germany. We have seen prices come down at the pumps, but according to the latest Statistics Canada numbers and what we are seeing at the grocery store, food inflation remains a serious problem.

While inflation is, as I said, a global phenomenon and a temporary one that will ease in time, that does not make the burden on Canadians today any less real and any less serious. While my colleagues and I in this place can afford to absorb the temporary higher prices, not all Canadians are that fortunate. They need our help, and just as we always have been, since the first act of our government after the 2015 election to lower taxes for the middle class and those working hard to join it by asking the top 1% to pay just a little more, we will be there for Canadians who need help the most.

Canadians are looking to their elected representatives for help, and I was pleased to see Bill C-30 receive speedy support and passage at second reading so that it could go to committee for further study. This is an important part of our government’s response to the affordability challenges that Canadians are facing.

If passed, Bill C-30 will double the goods and services tax credit for six months, delivering $2.5 billion in additional support to roughly 11 million lower-income Canadians. For a typical family, this could mean up to $612, plus $161 for each child under the age of 19. I hope the co-operative spirit continues and we see this legislation passed soon so that Canadians can get this much-needed help to cope with higher prices. I also hope that this same co-operative spirit can prevail in this place with Bill C-31, because it delivers much-needed help for lower-income Canadians struggling with higher prices. They do not want to see politicians stalling on the help they need with political games.

There are two main components in Bill C-31, and the first relates to dental care. While we here in this place benefit from generous employer-provided dental plans that cover us and our dependants, many Canadians are not so lucky. They are forced to pay for needed dental services out-of-pocket, including for their children. Beyond the cost of a regular cleaning for their children, dental emergencies can become financial emergencies and force very hard choices.

Making life more affordable for families across the country must include making oral health care accessible for all. Dental care is an important part of overall health, yet in Canada, one-third of the population cannot afford it.

Creating a proper national dental system from coast to coast to coast that is integrated as part of Canada’s health care system will take time, co-operation and coordination with the provinces and territories. However, in recognizing that we need to start helping Canadians with these costs now, this legislation proposes a new, temporary Canada dental benefit. The benefit would provide dental care for uninsured Canadians with a family income of less than $90,000 annually, starting with children under 12 years old in 2022.

The Canada dental benefit would allow all eligible parents to access direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per eligible child under 12, up to $650 per year, to support the costs of dental care services. Once the program is live, Canadians will be able to access the Canada dental benefit through their CRA accounts. The CRA is prepared to deliver and make it as easy as possible for eligible Canadians to get the money they need for oral health care.

Dental health is an important part of our overall health and should not be sacrificed for financial reasons. With this bill, we would be taking an important first step and putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians who need it the most.

The second major component of Bill C-31 relates to housing. Affordable housing and the high cost of safe and suitable housing is one of the biggest issues for the residents of my riding of Scarborough Centre. This legislation addresses one of the major components of housing that is so often ignored by the official opposition: rental housing. While they have a lot to say about home ownership, they have little to say and little to offer to those who rent their homes.

I have a lot of renters in my community of Scarborough, and many of them are trapped in inadequate and substandard rental housing that does not meet their needs. I say they are trapped because they cannot afford to move to a bigger unit or a nicer unit that could better suit their needs because market rent is now well beyond their means. If they were to leave their current unit, it would be rented out for many hundreds of dollars a month more.

Even within the guidelines, rent increases, in combination with all the other high prices families are facing, are difficult to manage. As part of the national housing strategy—

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

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

I ask hon. members to please keep the sound low so we can listen to the speech the hon. member is making.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as part of the national housing strategy, we are addressing the issue of affordability and the lack of rental housing construction and capacity. We have introduced the rapid housing initiative, a $2.5-billion program to finance the construction of modular housing as well as the acquisition of land and the conversion of existing buildings to affordable housing. The rental construction financing initiative gives developers low-cost loans during the riskiest phases of construction. This helps developers to better predict costs so they are more incentivized to build rental projects, all while meeting important criteria in terms of affordability, accessibility and energy efficiency.

These programs are working, but it will take time to have an impact and begin bringing prices under control. Canadians need help now. That is why this legislation proposes to invest $1.2 billion to provide a direct federal Canada housing benefit top-up payment of $500 to 1.8 million renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. This is in addition to the $4 billion we are already investing to provide an average of $2,500 in direct financial assistance for the cost of rent to Canadians across the country through the existing Canada housing benefit.

This new, one-time benefit would be available to applicants with incomes below $35,000 for families, and $20,000 for individuals, who pay at least 30% of their income on rent. If this legislation is passed, eligible renters will begin receiving payments before the end of this year. To be eligible, applicants must have filed their 2021 tax return and will need to attest that they are paying at least 30% of their adjusted net income on rent. Families must have a net income of $35,000, and individuals must have an income of less than $20,000. An estimated 1.8 million low-income renters, including students, who are struggling with the cost of housing would be eligible for this new support.

This is help that my constituents very much need. It would put more money back into the pockets of lower-income Canadians who need it to help buy groceries and put gas in their car so they can get to work. I urge my colleagues not to delay in passing this important legislation. Let us deliver help to those who need it the most, and let us do it today.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting, going back to the previous Liberal speaker, that Liberals do not want us to be talking about the carbon tax today. It is not surprising that they do not want to hear us talking about their plan to triple the carbon tax.

The reason we are raising this, of course, is that it speaks to the Liberal government's approach to affordability. The Liberals are presenting these measures as their so-called affordability package, but the reality is that they are continuing to increase taxes on Canadians. They have scheduled automatic tax increases for next year. The Liberals plan to raise payroll taxes and triple the carbon tax.

This is central to the debate today because, when the government says it is concerned about inflation and affordability, it was, frankly, not talking about inflation at all until the member for Carleton became Conservative leader. The Liberals were completely ignoring the issue. Now they say they care about it, but they are persisting with tax increases. Why are they persisting with their tax hikes?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the climate action incentive provides an annual credit for an individual in Ontario, my home province, of $373 for an individual and $186 for a spouse or common-law partner, and $93 per child under the age of 19. Every dollar raised through carbon pricing in Ontario goes back to the residents of Ontario. The less we pollute, the more we save.

When we are talking about affordability and helping Canadians, why does the hon. member want to take hundreds of dollars out of the pockets of Ontario families?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way as she went on and on about the cost of living relief measures, which are being offered on a one-time basis to help people through today's economic times.

Her government has been in office since 2015. If it had made meaningful, significant investments over the past seven years, the housing shortage would not be as severe as it is today.

How does the member explain that to her constituents?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing is an issue. Since we came into power, we have invested in the national housing strategy. I have seen first-hand an increase in the rental units. Through the rapid housing investments, we have been able to invest. In my own riding there has been an investment of 57 additional units, and we had a groundbreaking ceremony. The money is going into different housing projects. Investing $2.5 billion in modular housing is increasing rental stocks.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we stand in this place to talk about how dental care is so important for the health of children under 12, but it is also a financial benefit. It would be beneficial for our health care system, which is under attack and so overburdened, as children would not have to go for emergency care. We could do preventative work.

Could the member comment on the value of that, and perhaps how dental care is similar to things such as mental care and pharmacare, which are also very cost effective preventative measures against further hardships on our health care system?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her advocacy on dental care. Every Canadian deserves good oral health care. It is a key component to overall well-being. That is why we, as a government, are committed to working to build a comprehensive, longer-term national dental care program. It is really very important.

When I talk to families in my riding, it is very heartbreaking to see that some families cannot afford to take their kids to the dentist, even for a simple cleaning. I am really proud to stand in the House today to support the temporary dental benefit, which would provide up to $1,300 to families to take care of kids' dental needs.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 7:18, pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now resume debate on Bill C-31 at the second reading stage.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to debate Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

When the Liberals introduced this legislation in September, they would have had Canadians believe that it was a bill aimed to partly address the affordability crisis many of us are facing, but we should not be misled or misguided by their political spin. This bill is less about addressing the affordability crisis and the soaring cost of living than it is about the Liberals playing more politics at the expense of our economy and, ultimately, the well-being of Canadians.

The Liberals are only being sustained in power right now through the support of the NDP, and the NDP are only supporting the weak Liberal government to advance items on their political agenda, which they cannot advance alone as they are a party with only 25 seats. One of these items is dental care. In fairness to the NDP, they are calling for the development of a comprehensive national dental care program, and this Liberal program falls far short of that.

What is Bill C-31? It is a temporary measure the Liberals came up with. They are using it to buy time and appease the NDP so they can keep their NDP-Liberal coalition alive and remain in power for the indefinite future. It is a program designed to make the government look like it is doing something when it did very little all summer to address the real concerns Canadians face.

Right now, 70% of Canadians have a dental benefits plan. In my province of Ontario, there are currently dental plans for low-income seniors and for those on social assistance, and programs for children under the age of 17.

At a time when the provinces have been asking for increased health transfers, which they have been asking for three years now, when will the Prime Minister meet with them to address their concerns so they can enhance existing programs and services such as these, which are currently being delivered to Canadians?

After seven years of Liberal governance in Ottawa, Canadians are realizing they are not better off today compared to when the Liberals first took power in 2015. This is especially true when we consider how badly Canadians are hurting today on matters of life necessities, such has housing, food and energy. Costs have skyrocketed on all three essential life necessities. These costs are largely being driven by federal government policies that are focused on excessive spending, increasing taxes and creating new taxes to pay for these bad spending habits from a bloated and growing government bureaucracy.

When it comes to housing, young Canadians have done everything they were supposed to do to achieve success and live the Canadian dream. They earned a degree and they are working hard, yet many are still living in their parents' basements or in a small, 400-square-foot apartment because the price of housing has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Our housing bubble is the second largest in the world. Recently, we learned that the percentage of Canadians who own their own home is at its lowest level in over 30 years.

When the Prime Minister took office, Canadians were paying 32% of their income, on average, to maintain a mid-sized home. Now the average family has to pay 50% of their income just to keep their home. A one-time payment of $500 will do nothing to address the real issues of housing affordability many Canadians face. In fact, more than six out of 10 renters will not qualify for the Liberal's inflationary spending cheques.

Many of the inflationary issues and concerns we face are of the government's own making. We have pointed out for months that the Liberals out-of-control spending would lead to an increase in interest rates. The government has responded by telling Canadians not to worry, to go ahead and take out big loans, since interest rates would remain low for a long time and there would never be any negative consequences. Now we are seeing interest rates rise 300 basis points, or 3% in simple terms.

In terms of food and food production, the Liberal government has increased farmers' taxes. That increases the cost of fertilizer and energy needed to produce food. Now it wants to limit the use of fertilizer. That will require farming more land to produce the same quantity of food. Tractors and other equipment will have to cover a larger area, burning more diesel and other fuels. More food will have to be imported. Bringing this food from other countries to Canada will again require using more energy.

For Niagara agriculture, this means it will cost more to grow grapes and local produce like peaches and cherries, and make our local Canadian-made wine even more expensive. In terms of food consumption, these higher production costs get passed along to us, the consumers, when we go to the grocery store or local farmers' markets to buy our food to feed our families.

Food price increases are already hurting many Canadians. For example, here are some of the headlines reported by the media that indicate this growing problem: “Child hunger a major concern in Canada amid skyrocketing food prices”; “Niagara Falls families straining under the weight of soaring prices”; “Food Banks facing unprecedented demand in Niagara”; “GTA food banks say they're facing the highest demand in their history”; “Nearly 6 million people in Canada experienced food insecurity in 2021, U of T study says”. The list of these troubling headlines goes on.

This does not sound like the developed and strong country our parents and grandparents fought through two world wars for and built throughout their lives with their hard work and labour. After seven years of Liberal governance, the Prime Minister and his government have eroded and undermined our collective and individual wealth, massively indebted future generations and repeatedly blocked and suppressed economic and financial opportunities for Canadian workers, businesses and industries in all regions of our country.

Since 2015, the Liberal government has become big and bloated. It has grown too large. Its reach has become too wide, and its actions are becoming far too intrusive into the private lives of Canadians. It picks winners and losers based on its political priorities, and its bad spending habits are entrenched. That is why it is desperate to increase taxes and create new taxes against hard-working Canadians. It is so it can continue feeding its reckless big-spending appetite.

The bottom line is that Bill C-31 is just another big-spending Liberal plan that only serves to keep the NDP-Liberal coalition alive. Of course, it masks it using affordability language, but in reality, it does nothing to bring down the costs of necessities such as housing, food and energy, including fuel and heating. The Conservative leader said it best in his speech when he said, “That is our role, here in Parliament, to turn pain into hope. Canadians need hope.”

As I am about to conclude, I wanted to share the comments of one of my constituents, Jessica, who had some real concerns about Bill C-31. In her recent note to me, she wrote, “The $600 benefit should not be going towards dental billing directly. As a low-income parent, for myself and my son, I have looked into some quotes for the bundle of dental, pharmacy and medical care, and I have seen quotes, at least for myself, at about $100 per month (unaffordable though compelling).

“In other words, I am expressing that having a benefit to get started up on my family's medical and dental insurance is the help our family needs and should be getting from the government, rather than having the funds wasted on one or two dental visits when myself and my son could both get coverage, receive the $600 (even half annually) and have more medical benefits to keep us healthy. This is important to me as well as I approach middle age.”

I am proud to support my new leader in his mission to make a real difference in Canadians' lives through supporting policy measures that will actually make life more affordable. Bill C-31 would not do that. It is not a bill that would actually help Canadians. It is a bill designed to keep the NDP happy so that the NDP-Liberal coalition can continue.

We need to give Canadians back control of their lives in the freest country in the world, where the dollar keeps its value, so our citizens can have the life they work so hard to build.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could thank the member for this speech, but I think his constituents, 30,000 of whom do not have access to dental care in his riding, would be a bit disappointed if I thanked him for his speech. The Conservatives are basically dumping on dental care and the expansion of the health care system, and on the support for housing, which is so essential to meet the housing crisis people are seeing right across the length and breadth of this country, including in his riding.

The sum total of the Conservatives' contribution to the debate on this bill, which would help people with dental care and housing, is a kill amendment that would destroy the whole bill. This is so disrespectful to the tens of thousands of Canadians in his riding, and ridings right across the country, who need access to dental care. The NDP's dental care plan, as he knows, rolls out over three years. What it would do is help 30,000 families in his riding by the end of the process. Housing also needs to be supported.

Why are the Conservatives opposed to real measures that would help people in their ridings at this critical time?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the provinces have been asking the federal government for three years now to sit down and increase transfer payments so that they could properly fund the programs that currently exist. In Ontario, we have a program called “healthy smiles”. Children whose parents are on social assistance, under the age of 17, not 12, get coverage. Low-income seniors are covered at age 65. Did members know the Ontario government is currently undertaking a consultation program to provide benefit plans for those workers who do not have that? It is a portable program. Consultations go on until December.

Why is it that in the province of Ontario, Doug Ford is getting the support of labour? It is because he is getting the results for workers. What the current government needs to do is provide broad-based tax relief so that we get out of the way and put more money in the pockets of Canadians to assist them in providing the better future they are all looking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a surprise for the member, but provinces have been asking for increases in health care ever since I was first elected back in 1988. For over 30 years, every year provinces want more money for health care. That would be a wonderful debate to have on the floor, possibly as an opposition day motion.

My question is to follow up on the previous question. The bill is broken into two parts. A good part of the bill is the child dental care. There are children in the member's riding, as there are in mine, who have no coverage whatsoever for dental care. This bill would provide those children with dental care. Some of those children, if they do not get dental care, will end up going to hospitals where surgery will be done. We know that for a fact. How does the member justify to his constituents the fact that he is voting against a 12-year-old or a 10-year-old having dental care?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, currently in the province of Ontario, there are programs that exist that support those low-income individuals. Children under 17 in the province of Ontario can get coverage. Let me just quote again this email that I received from Jessica, a constituent of mine. She says, “The $600 benefit should not be going toward dental billing directly. As a low-income parent, for myself and my son, I have looked into some quotes for the bundle of dental, pharmacy and medical care and I have seen quotes, at least for myself, at about $100 per month.” That is what Jessica is looking for. She is looking for a program that could provide her with health care coverage.

The Province of Ontario is currently undertaking a consultation to provide portable health benefit plans. Why can the Province of Ontario do that while the federal government continues to fail? The Liberals are more interested in sending shiny cheques to people and trying to take the credit, instead of providing the broad-based tax relief that they currently need.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Here is where I stand and give my daily reminder that the shorter the questions and the shorter the answers, the more we can get in so that everybody can participate in this great debate we are having on this bill.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is here at a very critical time for millions of Canadians. There are too many Canadians struggling with the rising cost of living and the challenge of keeping rent paid and food in the fridge. As the NDP critic for disability inclusion, I hear from the disability community of the realities of skyrocketing housing and food costs and how it is impacting them disproportionately.

Fifty per cent of food bank users are now persons with disabilities. This is unacceptable and the Liberal government has a responsibility to uphold the human rights of persons with disabilities and ensure that they have an adequate standard of living. That is why Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit, cannot come fast enough for almost a million Canadians with a disability.

Inequality is rising at an exponential rate in Canada and, while grocery chains are bringing in billions of dollars in profits, everyday Canadians are falling further and further behind. Corporate greed is increasing. This crisis of corporate greed is driving inflation and it is affecting everyday Canadians. It affects some more than others. It especially affects persons with disabilities, single mothers and fixed and low-income families. These are long-standing issues. With the current greed inflation, crises are happening now all across communities in Canada and people need help immediately.

Many of them are renters. That is why the renters component of Bill C-31 is so important and why it needs to get out as soon as possible. This housing benefit is a one-time $500 payment for Canadians who qualify, specifically families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. People are already asking me when this will become available.

This payment will help 1.8 million Canadians with the cost of living, and it will make a real difference in their lives. It is something that the government should have brought in months and months ago. Too many renters have had to rely on rent banks throughout this pandemic. Too many people have already lost their rental housing. They are living in their cars, in tents or are couch surfing. This is the reality in communities across Canada. Tents, and I spoke of this yesterday, are now homes for more and more Canadians as they search for stable, affordable rental housing

I want to take a moment here to talk about payday loans. We have so many in my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam who are having to pay their rent through a payday loan, and we know that those interest rates are out of hand. I just want to point out that there is a bill from my colleague here from New Westminster—Burnaby on reducing those interest rates. The interest rates, for the most vulnerable who use payday loans, are criminal.

The need to act cannot wait. We cannot have one more person lose their home because they cannot afford their rent. The NDP is committed to ensure that this legislation gets through quickly, so that people can get this payment by the end of the year.

Let us not forget how Canadians got into a situation where rents are unaffordable. Conservative and Liberal governments have overseen the financialization of housing. Instead of protecting our social housing stock, they encouraged upzoning and gentrification in the name of density. Density dreams are for developers. The financialization of housing is only working for the wealthy and is leaving people behind. The most impacted are renters in need of low- to mid-income affordable homes.

We are losing affordable homes at a rate of 15:1. For every new unit this government prides themselves on building, it has not protected 15 other renters who now find themselves evicted or demovicted from their homes. Truly affordable social housing has been sacrificed to create an asset class for pension funds and for the wealthiest people and companies across the globe.

Even after Bill C-31 passes, the government must immediately act to end the financialization of housing before more Canadians lose their homes, before more children are displaced from their schools and their friends, and before more seniors lose services, as they are forced out of the community in which they raised their children.

The second part of this legislation is related to the cost of living as well, and it will have profound and long-lasting benefits for millions of Canadians. It is transformational and will make a difference for generations to come. It is dental care.

New Democrats have always known that everyone, no matter their income, should have access to basic health care, yet ever since the Canada Health Act was first passed, it has been a project incomplete. It has been a vision unfulfilled. Aspects of our health were not included in the legislation that created universal health care. Things like our eyes, mental health, which we are recognizing this month, and dental care are integral to our concept of health and to our health outcomes. They must be included in Canada's universal health care.

Today, with Bill C-31, we take the next step to universal health care by adding the long-awaited dental care. Thirty-five per cent of Canadians lack proper dental insurance and that number jumps to 50% when we are talking about low-income Canadians. Seven million Canadians avoid going to the dentist because of the cost. It is shameful. It is something that has to change. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease, and the worst access to dental care. There is something wrong here. It needs to change and New Democrats are going to make sure it changes.

The legislation in front of us begins with getting uninsured children of low- and modest-income families the care they need. Kids deserve it. The most prominent day surgery in hospitals among children is dental care. Shamefully, tooth decay remains the most common, yet preventable, chronic childhood illness in Canada because too many families cannot afford a visit to the dentist's office. It has taken 50 years to protect all children with this dental care plan. We are here now, so let us make it happen.

In closing, New Democrats are in a position to use their power to force the government to immediately make life better for people by providing rent support now and essential dental care in the long term. However, let us not forget why we are here in need of these emergency benefits. It is because of bad policies put forward by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, policies that put corporate profits and tax protections for the ultrawealthy before the social fabric of Canada.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives turned their backs on investments in housing and health care in favour of a private market-driven model that is not working. In fact, it is hurting people. This decades-long lack of government investment in people is why we need Bill C-31, but make no mistake. It is just the beginning of building back necessary social supports so that all people can thrive. New Democrats will continue to lead that charge and use our power to work for Canadians.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side are trying to blast this government by suggesting it is not helping Canadian citizens. I would like to remind all of them that once the COVID-19 pandemic started, the government took care of every single Canadian from coast to coast to coast and took care of every business in Canada to help people confront the pandemic and live in decency.

Regarding the housing problem, does my colleague know how much money is allocated to building new houses? Does she know about our rapid housing initiative as well as our day care program? This government is taking care of parents so that they can go to work and do not have to stay home to take care of the children. Regarding inflation, that is a worldwide problem. The economy created for Canada, thanks to this government, is still number one among the G7.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the member that it was because of the NDP that many of those programs, like CERB, allowed people to stay in their homes over the pandemic. If it was not for the NDP, people would have received half of what they needed to survive.

I was actually looking at the rapid housing initiative numbers today on an Order Paper question. A number of rapid house initiatives have not yet been built and we see it manifesting on the streets of our communities. People are living in tents. It does not matter and we cannot fall back on the fact that this is a G7 problem. There are people in Canada suffering, and the government has a responsibility to put them into homes, to build homes, to have affordable homes available for them and to pass Bill C-31.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Does the member recognize that inflation is hurting our economy and that inflation is directly related to government spending? The more we spend, the more we hurt people. There are thousands of dollars of buying power being lost. A single mom making $50,000 would have lost thousands of dollars in real purchasing power. This would cover dental care. This would cover much more than one $500 rental payment. This would put her in a much better position.

Does the member recognize the power of our businesses and our workers?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a woman standing here in the House, I am going to say there is a real problem with gender inequity in pay. There is a pay gap in this country that is long-lasting. These are inequalities that have brought us to this place. It has to do with the fact that we do not pay people enough. We exploit women and their work. We exploit immigrants and their work, and that is the problem. We need to raise salaries in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam is an ardent defender of her constituents. We know there is a housing crisis across the country. We know there are, in each riding in this country, about 30,000 people who do not have access to dental care.

Could the member remind us about what the impacts will be in Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra as a result of this NDP bill getting through the House?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question, because I did want to talk very quickly about rent banks.

This legislation would make a huge difference to renters in my riding, in Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra. A rent bank came into being during COVID. A rent bank was necessary in my community, and the usage of that rent bank continues to increase.

The same thing is happening all across the country. We know in Ottawa the usage of the rent bank has gone through the roof. This legislation would stop people from having to visit the rent bank and having to go and visit the payday loans. They are almost impossible to return, so I also want to thank the member for his private member's bill on the interest rates of payday loans.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to stand tonight and speak to this bill. I am going to speak slowly, because I just decided to do this and do not have anything to provide to the translators, so I promised them I would do my best to make it as easy as possible for them to translate what I have to say tonight.

It is really important we go back to the beginning of the current government, which was my first time in the House, and remember what happened as early as pre-COVID. We tend to focus on things as they are right now, but how did we get here? We have heard over and over again tonight the word “crisis” and that we are in a crisis. Absolutely, I agree, but why are we in the crisis we are in today, where Canadians are suffering so much within an economy that is simply not functioning the way it should?

We heard about sunny ways and how amazing life was going to be for Canadians with a new government. Honestly, it is true, there was a real sense of hope in Canada when the Liberal government came to power. However, seven years later, we are in a situation where the government, when it runs out of answers, goes all the way back to 2017 to talk about the amazing things it did.

It brought in a Canada child benefit, which, it claims, lifted all of these children out of poverty and no longer gave money to the wealthy, and which was just an amazing service that it gave to Canadians.

However, what the government does not talk about is how many of those whom they raised out of poverty were also being raised out of poverty previously, and also that the way it runs this program, where it picks winners and losers, costs a lot more. The way the government functions, bureaucratically, costs Canadians more.

As I walked along, knocking on doors, people would say to me that they get the child benefit but have to give it all back. At that point, I would ask if they owned their home, how many cars they had and if they both worked. In that circumstance, they did not need that money. I would tell them to set it aside, and when the time came, to pay it back to the government through their taxes.

However, what if something happened whereby that family lost its means of income in the course of that year? Let us say they worked in the oil field when the government came into power, and all of a sudden their jobs are gone. The way this program is set up, they would need to wait until the next year, after they filed their taxes, to show how desperate they were, and then have their child benefit reinstated. The way the program used to run, if someone hit the end of that year and things were bad, they would have that money.

On the circumstances around lowering the taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthy, there are reasons to go that route to some degree, yet the government claimed it was revenue neutral. We know it was not. We are talking millions of dollars in difference that it did not make up by doing that, so already we were in a situation where the government was not managing money well. It was not managing the funds from Canadians' money well in the way it was providing its programs.

That was all pre-COVID, when it signalled to the world that Canada was not going to be open for business anymore. All kinds of small businesses and medium-sized businesses that were involved in our oil and gas industry left this country in an instant. I am sure the members on the other side of the floor must understand that when one does that and all of a sudden creates chaos in the source of funding for our economy, it is not a good thing. Canadians were left in very dire straights.

We were no longer open for business. We lost the confidence of investors in this nation. As a matter of fact, the government had to buy a pipeline, or maybe chose to buy a pipeline, because it wanted to control the future of our oil and gas industry in a way that was not beneficial toward a green economy in the future, because we were hampering our own country at a time when the world, and it knows this as well, will continue to need oil for a long time.

Therefore, we are saying to a world that needs our products, which are clean and ethical and enable our people to earn a living and to pay taxes so that current and future governments can provide for the true needs of Canadians, that all of a sudden those products are not there. These measures that we are looking at today are temporary measures. They are like putting one's finger in a dike.

I know Canadians are desperate enough to say that they want this and need this and that it is better than nothing, but the frustrating thing is that we never should have gotten here in the first place. The government promised a $10-billion over-expenditure on an annual basis. It has never met that promise, and we are facing almost a trillion and a half dollars in debt as a nation, larger than all the debt combined throughout the history of our country. That is where we are today.

Of course, Canadians are in a circumstance that is very difficult. I grew up in Saskatchewan. As I was growing up, we had an NDP government. I grew up during that time when things were really tough. My husband has four siblings and I have five. Out of 11 of us, everybody but two left our province. There was no work. There was no income for our government to do the things it needed to do. We were in a situation where government knew best and wanted to provide for everybody, and it shut down productivity in our province. People left because there was no work. There was no encouragement for people to become small business men or women and make a difference for their own family by becoming productive on their own.

With respect to these measures that I am seeing here now, they are trying to put a stopgap in a situation that is really bad. That is what happened during COVID as well, because people were not allowed to work. Small business owners in my communities could have maintained their ability to be active in their communities. They could have continued to pay their employees and produce their products in a way that worked within that environment, but the government shut everything down. Yes, it provided in that circumstance, but it created the problem as well.

I experienced having a small business in the early 1980s. It says here that this is the worst inflation in 40 years. Do members know what was happening about 40 years ago? I experienced losing our business, as did many business owners, because interest rates rose to 22% overnight because of the fiscal approach of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Here we are today. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

I just want to put a shout-out for the fact that yes, as the NDP members are saying, large corporations should not be receiving benefits from the government. The Liberal government handed out incredible amounts of money for fridges for a large corporation that these people spoke against, yet here it is now, supporting them.

I want to speak for corporations that put incredible amounts of tax dollars into our provincial and federal governments and provide amazing community resources. I know, because I live where there is one. They provide benefits to their employees that are unmatched. We have a lot for which to thank those corporations that do good work and are fiscally and environmentally responsible. We should not be painting them all with the same brush.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that if there were restrictions in Saskatchewan or Alberta, most of those were provincial. The provincial government stepped forward and it did things to protect the citizens from catching COVID and overwhelming our already overwhelmed medical system.

I would like the member to reflect on the dolphin effect that Alberta and Saskatchewan and, perhaps, to a certain degree, Newfoundland and Labrador have gone through by depending so much on oil. There are times that are really good, and other times that are just absolutely atrocious for those provinces. We are seeing today that OPEC and Russia are getting together to cut the amount of oil they are producing to keep the prices high. It seems that we are under the thumb of some gangsters here by depending a lot on oil and oil revenues.

What would the hon. member propose to whatever government we end up with in Alberta and the Government of Saskatchewan to protect themselves and harden themselves from the variations in revenues they have seen from the oil patch?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the first part of what was said, that it was the provinces that brought in the mandates that made it difficult for businesses and whatnot. I am sorry, but I hold the Prime Minister and the Liberal government fully responsible for everything that has happened in this country, because when it first hit and we did not know what we were dealing with, our borders were not shut down to China and thousands of people from Wuhan, and China in general, came into this country.

That is absolutely true. You are welcome at any point to share with the House, the way you were supposed to, what helped you make the decisions that you made and every province responded to the—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. member that I did not make any decisions. I am sure she meant the hon. members over there, if she could just speak through the Speaker.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, you did make a couple of good decisions that I really appreciated, even as far as bringing the member to the bar and facing what you faced.

Anytime the government is ready to share the information that this House called for so that we are aware of what was done to make the decisions that were made is fine with me. I am open to that and I would appreciate hearing what should have been shared with the House in the first place.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-31. What is Bill C-31? We are talking about providing families whose incomes are less than $90,000 the ability to access dental supports for children 12 and under as its first initiative. For those who do not have access to this, it is absolutely critical. We are also talking about providing low-income individuals and families a housing benefit of $500, although it is a one-time payment. The Conservatives are against these measures. They are against families who need dental support accessing this dental care plan.

In the member's constituency, has she talked to any of the families who are in need of dental services? Has she told them that the Conservatives intend to say no to their access to dental care supports?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this is definitely something that we have discussed in my riding. Truth be told, the majority of people in my riding have dental care programs. I have experienced this as well because, when the previous prime minister was in place, we went through a very hard time. We lost our business. We had $500 to our name, three small children and had to totally retool for our future. There were programs available for us. There are programs available for seniors who are within the province to assist them as well.

It is not that I do not believe that these children should have the support that they need. I just believe that we should be focused, as a government, on those who truly need assistance and not thinking of the larger-scale programs where everybody falls under the same umbrella and no one is left to put the taxes in the place—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you, the support staff and all the members in here for burning the midnight oil with me. I appreciate it. I will try to keep you informed, if not entertained.

Thanks again to the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South for sending me here. It is an honour every day.

Today, I rise to talk about Bill C-31, which is an act respecting the cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, otherwise dubbed the so-called affordability bill.

Before I start talking about the substance of the bill, and I will get there, I promise, I think it is important to outline some of the context in which this legislation comes to the House.

We are in an affordability crisis. There can be no doubt about that. I think all 338 members would share my opinion on that. We have inflation that has hit over 7%. We are facing an environment that has been created, and this is where some of my Liberal colleagues may disagree with me, by the Liberals' tax-and-spend agenda. The government's profligate spending has led to more printing of money.

What happens, in broad terms, is that the government spends and spends, but it does not have the money to back that up. It does not have the tax dollars to back up its spending. What it does is print money. The fancy term is quantitative easing, which involves the buying and selling of bonds by the government basically to itself, but the reality is that it is printing money.

What happens when inflation increases is that it hurts Canadians of course because everything becomes increasingly more expensive, which creates increased pain for Canadians. The truth of the matter is that we will certainly hear the members of the NDP talk about the price gouging and the profit-taking. There is one organization that has taken more profits than all corporations combined. That is the federal government. If we want to talk about profiteering, that starts and begins with the federal government. The revenues overfloweth because of the inflation tax. Every week the current government hits new revenue highs and new revenue increases. This is coming off the backs of Canadians.

If we look at people who are making $50,000 a year, those individuals have seen their purchasing power decrease by thousands of dollars. They have seen a pay decrease of thousands of dollars. I can tell members that this story is hundreds of years old, even thousands of years old. Every time the government goes about this, right back to the Roman government, when it starts printing money, or at that point reducing the amount of valuable material in coins, when it starts increasing that, what always happens is that the people get hurt.

With that more spending, the rules of supply and demand kick in. Money is worth less and it is harder for everyone, but who it hurts the most is not the wealthy. The wealthy are doing quite well. They have seen their million-dollar houses become $2-million houses. They have seen their businesses and stock portfolios potentially increase in value. Even that is being hit now with the current Liberal government's poor economic stewardship, but it is the most vulnerable. If people are earning $20,000 or $30,000 a year, with food prices going up by 10%, it is a much bigger deal for them than if they are earning $100,000 and they just have to reduce their Netflix subscription. That is the difference between a single mom being able to feed her family or not.

I will tell members that if they want a true rental and dental bill, it is called eliminating the carbon tax. That will provide Canadians with a lot more tax relief, which will provide a lot more dollars, and to the most vulnerable, than this rental-dental bill ever would.

We have to understand the very basics of this. Food inflation has increased the cost of food by $1,300. The rental bill will provide $500 for rent. The math is simple. The reality is monetary. Continuing to spend money, which is funded by the Bank of Canada, will create a disillusionment.

What happens when the government spends money is that there is an initial excitement and exuberance. When that money hits the bank accounts of Canadians, they are excited, which has happened many times throughout history, but that exuberance quickly turns into a deep sense of disillusionment as they realize that it is just a nasty trick because the cost of everything has increased. Once again, the main beneficiary of this is the government. Its revenues continue to increase while Canadians continue to suffer.

The only true path to addressing this affordability crisis and to really increasing the prosperity of our country is by increasing productivity, because it is voodoo to say that if we print money, we are worth more. That is not how this works. How a country actually increases its value is by producing more goods and services efficiently, because that increases real wages, real prosperity and, dare I say, real profits. We see that impact on Canadian wage earners because Canada's wages are lower, on average, than the United States, Switzerland and Ireland. What else is lower than in those countries? Our productivity is lower. Productivity per hour in Switzerland is $60 and ours is $50. In the U.S. it is $65 and ours is $50. In Ireland, it is $84. It is no surprise because that has a real impact. We need to make Canadians more productive.

Do members know that we are last in the OECD, the very bottom, of capital investments? It is because the private sector is getting pushed out by the Liberal government. The private sector simply does not have the funds to invest and that has very real consequences. Canada is investing 43¢ on every dollar the U.S. is investing in capital investments. That makes every worker less efficient, less effective and makes our country less productive.

Through the private sector, we create opportunities for people. We create great jobs. We allow people to spend their money as they best see fit, and 100 times out of 100 times, I will put more faith in Canadians to make decisions about their own lives than any bureaucrat in Ottawa, because Canadians know how to control their own money. Farmers know how to be stewards of their farms, which is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister said, and I can say that my farmers are not happy about that comment.

Let us get back to everyday Canadians. We are coming up on Thanksgiving. Do members want to know what the impact of the Liberals' tax-and-spend agenda is? The cost of a turkey is up 15% to 16% per kilogram. Potatoes are up 22%. Butter has increased 13%. Cranberries are up 12%. Bacon is 12% more expensive. Chicken is up 10%, and corn is up 6%. For a wealthy family, this will not have a significant impact, but for a family just trying to get by, trying to have a nice Thanksgiving after the two years of suffering we have all been through with COVID and trying to put food on the table, this will have a real impact. We have seen that.

There were 20% more Canadians going to food banks from 2019 to 2021, a full 20%. Over 20% of Canadians are changing their diet because they cannot afford to eat the way they used to, and 8% of people are skipping meals. They avoid eating because they cannot afford food in this Liberal economy.

We in the Conservative Party want every child to have dental care and we want every person to be housed, but we believe that comes from the workers and businesses of this country. The higher the inflation, the more it will impoverish Canadians. That is what history says. We have true compassion for people. We want to make sure that businesses are successful, that workers are effective, that families can have a great Thanksgiving and that Canada remains affordable and becomes the freest country in the world.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious about the way the member opposite ended his speech. He suggested that the Conservatives support dental care, but dental care comes from the workers of this country. Is he suggesting that families that make under $90,000 are not working hard and, therefore, do not deserve dental care?

In addition to that, how can he look Canadians in the face and tell them they do not deserve access to dental care for their children, but he can receive taxpayer-funded dental care for himself and his family? How can he say that people making under $90,000 do not deserve dental care while he receives taxpayer-funded dental care himself?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member's passion, but I would ask her how she can sit at her Thanksgiving dinner, eating comfortably on public dollars, while many of my constituents will not be able to afford to eat this Thanksgiving.

Her facts are just wrong. In Ontario, kids 17 and over in low-income families have publicly funded dental care. That already exists, and that is her province.

If we want Canadians to have true prosperity, true prosperity comes from Canadians. It does not come from the federal government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a curious thing. The member actually says he wants to see families who need dental care have access to dental care. There is a simple solution to that. All he has to do is vote for the bill.

It is not rocket science to figure it out, because this bill would ensure that families with incomes of less than $90,000, and that do not have access to a dental care plan, would get it, starting with children under 12 this year. Next year it would be for seniors, people with disabilities and people 18 and under, and full realization would follow the year after that. It is not that difficult to figure out how to realize what the member wants. Why does he not just vote for the bill?

On the question of affordability, the NDP has been advancing to actually tax wealthy CEOs and big corporations, which have been getting a giant windfall in profitability. Why do we not do what the UN Secretary General suggested, and put in place a windfall tax, as the NDP is suggesting? If that happened, we could ensure those individuals, who are not able to put food on the table, would get the support they need.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the member's passion, but the reality is this: The more we tax, the more we spend, the more money we print, the tougher it gets for Canadians. The 10% food inflation will mean that children will go hungry tonight. That is what those policies lead to. They lead to the impoverishment of Canadians.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for highlighting some of the economic problems Canada faces, including our lack of productivity when compared to our G7 neighbours and trading partners. It made me think of a speech given by the former minister of finance for the government, Bill Morneau. In it, he said that the fundamental problem of the government is its focus on wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, when we increase the size of the pie, everyone benefits. The reality is that when the pie shrinks, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. Like I said, 10% food inflation and 7% inflation in general are hurting people on fixed incomes the most, those folks who are wage earners and those who are trying to climb up the opportunity staircase. They are being brought down by the corrosive impacts of inflation. That is why we need to get this tax-and-spend NDP-Liberal government under financial control.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise in the House of Commons. It is great to see many members of Parliament returning to be in person in the House of Commons once again. It is great to see. It is great for camaraderie in the House to be able to connect with other members, not only within our own party but also with the parties across the way.

Throughout the summer, I did hear from many people who are worried about the cost of living, which is what brings us to the bill we have here today. Many people are doing their very best to survive. I am sure that all members should be aware by now that this is not only a regional problem. It is not only affecting my riding. It is affecting people all across the country. As a result, Canadians are worried about what is happening right now with our economy and where it is headed.

It has been a really difficult year for a growing number of people. We have seen our inflation rate reach levels not seen in almost 40 years, which would be before I was even born.

Back in the early to mid-eighties, my parents had to deal with buying their farm with interest rates at around 18%. We are already hearing some rumblings of a recession, which should take us back to that time once again. I know that many people are not too excited about the prospect of interest rates of even 8%, let alone 18%.

For a lot of younger Canadians today and, in particular, a lot of young farmers and ranchers in my riding, it is already hard to imagine ever getting ahead, finding opportunity or even achieving a dream as simple as owning a home. Now they have to deal with everyday essentials that are basically unaffordable, never mind trying to think about the future for themselves or their families, if they can start a family in the first place.

In response to this situation, we have Bill C-31 in front of us today. Sadly, there is no sign that the Liberal government will acknowledge the full scale of the problem.

They also do not want to talk about where the problems are coming from or admit that reversing their failed policies is part of the solution. Since taking power over seven years ago, the Liberal government has been short-sighted with promoting and developing our industries. Strengthening our economy simply has not been a priority, and some of our strongest assets, such as the energy sector, have consistently been punished instead of supported.

This left us in a vulnerable position, where we were unprepared for whenever a new crisis would eventually come along. As a result, Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of these bad decisions. At first, the Liberals were simply ignoring the issue for a while, but they cannot say that we didn't warn them.

Once it was clear that our national economy was getting into trouble, the Liberals went right ahead with their same old approach. As much as they try to pretend otherwise, big spending is not going to make our troubles disappear. It actually adds fuel to the fire at a time when the flames are out of control. That is what Canadians are seeing and living right now with their cost of living.

Last year saw inflation rise quickly and stay high above the target of 2%. After the Liberals could not ignore it anymore, they decided to downplay it. They would say, “Do not worry. It is just temporary.”

That is basically what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said back in January when I asked about their projections at the time. She said:

Inflation is currently higher than what we were accustomed to over the last decade. This is true in Canada and in many other countries around the globe. This is a matter of concern to the Bank of Canada and the government. However, most market observers around the world view the factors keeping inflation elevated to be temporary. As a result, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to ease back and to reach its 2% target by late 2022.

That was their prediction, on the record, and they have not really reconsidered it since then. Even though that clearly did not turn out to be the case, we will not hear the Liberal government take any responsibility for what Canadians are going through today. To this day, they will never dare admit that they have contributed to it. Anything or anyone else is to blame except for themselves.

After the budget, I asked again if the government had any plans to control inflation, just in case they were wrong in saying that it might not actually be that big of a deal. Once again, there was not much of an answer. Besides mentioning the Bank of Canada hiking interest rates, they pointed to the type of proposal we find in Bill C-31, along with national child care.

Over the summer, while Canadians faced worsening challenges, the government finally realized that it might start to affect them, after seeing some signs that it is losing public support over its approach. It tried to generate some new excitement in the media about how it was putting together a plan to help with the cost of living but, so far, the Liberal plan appears to be changing nothing from what they were doing before. There is no readjustment in sight.

That means that it is attempting to help with affordability in limited ways without fighting inflation, which should be a non-starter. If we look at Bill C-31, we will find that the Liberals propose to handle inflation with new programs that require a lot more inflationary spending. By definition, that will not make things better overall.

It might be a political price for a coalition with the NDP, but paying it will end up costing Canadians, who will continue to struggle with affordability. That is because none of this amounts to a full-scale plan or a serious effort to fix the root cause of something that is impacting all Canadians.

If that continues unchecked, it is easy for the problem to stay with us and get worse. After spending billions of taxpayer dollars, it could help the effects of inflation persist and cancel any net benefits to affordable living. If that happens, what will the government tell Canadians then? Even with affordability, the Liberals are missing the mark. They are well aware that food and fuel are two of the biggest things driving inflation, and they want to make things worse in both of these areas.

When Canadians started to see the highest gas prices ever at the pumps, Conservatives voted for a temporary suspension of the carbon tax, but the Liberal government refused to do it. We are dealing with food prices rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. At a time like this, I have to remind the government that it is our farmers who grow and raise it in the first place. The same carbon tax is hitting them year after year, and the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are all comfortable with tripling it going forward.

Instead of changing direction, they are doubling down, even tripling down. The Liberals deny that it is doing any damage because the rebates are giving people more money back than they pay, at least that is the government's idea of affordability. Many Canadians know that is not happening for them, especially in small towns, particularly in rural Saskatchewan and especially for our farmers.

I have seen a bill from a farmer that shows the added cost of $1,100 in one month, just in carbon tax. It definitely does not match the annual rebate given for my province.

The Liberals are also bringing another attack on agriculture through an unrealistic target for fertilizer emissions. After being asked multiple times, they have not ruled out a restriction or a ban as seen in other countries. That type of policy would be disastrous for producing food, and it should be unthinkable when the world is already trying to avoid catastrophic shortages.

It should come as no surprise that the Liberals are not interested in prioritizing people's needs over their political projects. The real concern for achieving affordability has been noticeably lacking. How can Canadians believe the same government's claim that their new programs are supposed to be the answer? It all sounds more like an excuse. The government's past record speaks for itself.

Even with child care, as another recent example, the government's plan is designed for specific circumstances involving day care. What is it doing for any families who want to live on a single income and take care of their own children in their own home? The Liberals are the ones who removed income splitting, which helped these families afford whichever decisions were right for them. With the way it has been handling everything, the government's failed priorities have added extra pressure in the lives of these families and excluded different options for them.

Meanwhile, they are not addressing the larger problem behind the costs that all families have to deal with. That can only be done by actually fighting inflation and strengthening our economy as a whole. We are demanding something better for Canadians.

We cannot pretend the Liberals are offering any lasting solutions by simply repackaging their platform, a platform that has consistently been proven not to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, for weeks we have been hearing the Conservatives talking about “triple, triple, triple” when it comes to the carbon tax.

In my province of British Columbia, the price of gas has gone up about a dollar a litre this year. The whole carbon tax, even if we got rid of the carbon tax, is just 10¢ or 11¢ of that. It is 1% of the greedflation we have seen from the oil and gas companies.

The increase that is going to happen this year is 2¢ a litre. Again, that is 1% of the price we are paying for fuel across much of the country. Today the price of gas was supposed to go up 10¢. If we got rid of the carbon tax, we would be back to where we were yesterday. This would not solve the problem of inflation for Canadians.

Could the member comment on that? All this talk about the carbon tax will do absolutely nothing for most Canadians. They need real help, and that is what the NDP is delivering tonight with Bill C-31.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that going back to yesterday where there is no carbon tax would mean that groceries, food, heating, energy and gas would all be cheaper. It would means things would be more affordable for Canadians. That is the crisis that we are going through right now, an affordability crisis.

Over the next number of years the carbon tax will go up, and the clean fuel standard will kick in, which is also going to add another couple cents per litre, and going forward that will also increase, putting another burden on Canadians, consumers and how we transport our goods across this country.

Those are things we cannot afford that are pricing Canadians out of the grocery store, out of their homes and into a situation where they have to choose between heating or eating.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple question. The member spoke quite a bit about inflation being caused by government spending. Can he explain to the House why he is voting in favour of Bill C-30, which is for spending money to give people more in GST rebates?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. It is a tax rebate. When I first entered the workforce, I received GST cheques. I remember what that was like, but that was for taxes I had paid to the government that were coming directly back to me. It is just like a tax return. When we all file our taxes, the money coming back to us is what we paid to the government. Leaving more money in people's pockets would be better, but in lieu of the government actually cutting and reducing taxes, we will support a rebate on the taxes that Canadians have paid.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on that. I find this confusing, because ultimately when a government pools its money equally and equitably and all people pay their fair share, including billionaires like a Weston, who is worth $10 billion U.S. in personal value and worth, it creates public services and social services that ultimately extend equality and create more of it. That is money back in people's pockets. They do not have to spend it on going to the doctor. They do not have to spend it on going to the dentist. They do not have to worry about their pension and saving for it in a private way. I do not understand why the member opposite is not talking about what those public services provide to people's pockets.

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

Mr. Speaker, the $12-million handout the government gave to Loblaws, for example, was something that never should have happened. As far as I know, the NDP supported that measure. We do not want to see big handouts to big corporations like that.

What is most important is that oil companies in small-town Saskatchewan, for example, are passing along their profits. They are investing in the communities where they operate, but also beyond them. Hospitals, care homes and schools are paid for by revenue dollars that are brought in by oil companies. The government is making record profits right now on the backs of oil revenues that have been sky high over the summer.

We need to remember where that money comes from. It comes from the people who are providing jobs and providing energy to this country. As the government and the NDP want to phase out and eliminate that, they are eliminating billions of dollars in revenue for the provinces and the federal government. These programs would not exist or even be an option if these companies were to disappear.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, it is an honour to rise to speak. Tonight it is especially an honour because rarely do we actually debate life-changing bills here in this Parliament. We talk about a lot of important things, but we do not often talk about bills that will literally change the lives of not a few Canadians but millions of Canadians.

Bill C-31 is one of them because the main part of the bill is an interim measure to provide dental care to millions of Canadian children. It is a down payment on the full dental care program that the NDP has put forward to provide dental coverage, like two-thirds of Canadians have and one-third do not. Those people making under $90,000 a year, by the end of the three-year program, will have dental coverage just like most Canadians. This is a down payment on that. It is truly life changing.

I want to tell the story of my friend, Joan. I talk to Joan every month or so. She heard about the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. Part of that agreement was that the Liberal government agreed to implement the NDP's dental care plan. When I phoned her just to catch up, she just said, “I have to talk about dental care.” I was a bit taken aback. Usually we do not talk about political stuff. She said, “I grew up in rural Alberta. We were a poor family when I was a kid. We couldn't afford to go to a dentist.”

Like most kids in those days, especially, she got cavities. Her friends who had parents who were more well off got to go to the dentist and have those cavities filled. Joan's parents could not afford that so they did not go to the dentist. Eventually, her teeth were in such bad shape that she had to have many of them taken out and replaced with ill-fitting dentures. She was a kid getting dentures. As a result, she was painfully shy about how her mouth looked and how her teeth looked. That shyness has followed her the rest of her life. She is still very uncomfortable in social situations.

She was very emotional when she was telling me this story. She said, “Not having dental care when I was a kid changed my life for the worse. It made me shy. I wish I wasn't, and if only I could have had that dental care when I was a kid it would have changed my life.”

This is life-changing legislation. Every child in this country should have access to dental care. Many of us here just take dental care for granted. We all, as MPs, have a dental plan. Many of us had jobs before we went into politics that had dental plans. We have had dental coverage for some time. However, a third of Canadians, 35% actually, do not have access to dental care.

There are seven million Canadians who avoid going to the dentist every year because they cannot afford to. We are not talking about one or two people here and there. This is thousands and thousands of people in the ridings of every one of the people here in this chamber. That proportion rises to 50% of low-income Canadians who do not have dental coverage and a majority of seniors. This not only changes people's lives but it costs our health care system a lot of money.

In British Columbia, alone, it is estimated that visits to emergency rooms by people needing emergency dental care who cannot afford to go to a dentist costs the province about $155 million per year. That is in British Columbia, so we could multiply that by 10, or $1.5 billion, a year across Canada, as a rough estimate.

The NDP are very proud of the fact that Tommy Douglas brought in our universal health care system in Canada. When he did, he fully imagined that it would cover all forms of health care, including dental care and pharmacare for that matter, but that did not happen.

When the NDP proposed to fix that in the previous Parliament, we brought in this dental care bill, and both the Liberals and Conservatives voted against it. However, now in this minority Parliament, the NDP has used its power here to make this happen. We will finally have dental coverage for all Canadians.

This dental care plan will not be a universal plan. Not every Canadian would get it. It would be only for those who need it, for those who do not have dental care now and who make less than $90,000 per year, but it would give everybody who cannot afford to go to the dentist the ability to go to the dentist and have their teeth cared for like most of us do.

Why is this important? As I said, dental care is essential to overall health. I am going to go through some of the details of it. It is estimated that 500,000 Canadian children would benefit from this bill. It would provide payments of up to $650 per child per year for families with a net income under $90,000. That will be pro-rated. If someone makes under $70,000, they would get the full amount, and someone would get something else up to $90,000.

I would like to give some quotes from experts in the field as to how they see this plan and what they think about it.

The first is from Lynn Tomkins who is the president of the Canadian Dental Association. I talked to Dr. Tomkins back in August. She says:

[The Canadian Dental Association] welcomed the federal government’s commitment...of a multi-billion-dollar, ongoing investment in enhancing Canadians’ access to oral health. It comes after years of CDA encouraging federal investments in dental care. All those who have advocated on this issue in the past, whether on behalf of CDA, provincial or territorial dental associations...should be proud that their hard work has led to this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We cannot miss it and cannot let it go by us.

The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association said:

After months of hard work, meetings with parliamentarians...the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association (CDHA), representing the sixth-largest regulated health profession in Canada, was excited at yesterday’s announcement about the Government of Canada’s proposed new legislation (Bill C-31) to deliver targeted supports to Canadians as part of its affordability plan.

Brandon Doucet, who is the founder of the Coalition for Dentalcare, is a dentist from Nova Scotia. He said, “by the end of this year, we could have one of the most important additions to public health care since medicare’s founding if the federal government delivers on its promise to create a public dental program for low-income Canadians.”

I do not want to sound too much like K-tel, but there is more. This is just one part of Bill C-31. The other part is another important pillar in affordability and that is the rental benefit. That would be a $500 top-up, a one-time payment, that would go to individuals with net incomes of up to $20,000, so these are low-income Canadians, or household net incomes of up to $35,000. This would help 1.8 million families across Canada.

There are two parts to this bill. The dental care, I think, is the most important, but also, people are struggling with their rents. People are struggling to find places to live. This would help them as well.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that my hon. colleague from British Columbia talked about the rental aspect of this legislation. I was talking with a constituent of mine, and we were trying to understand how significant the one-time $500 payment is. This family purchased a new home but was budgeting at a lower interest rate. In the meantime, interest rates have gone up 2.5% to 3%, which made a difference of $700 in their monthly payments. That is an inflationary cost.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of managing inflation and getting it under control, and how beneficial that would be for working-class people and poorer families that need dental care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that inflation is hurting Canadians. There are all these aspects to inflation. We have heard a lot about the price of gas. We have heard a tremendous amount about the price of housing and the impossibility of owning a home for new homebuyers in Canada. With the skyrocketing cost of rent in my riding, it is almost impossible to find rental accommodation of any sort, let alone afford it.

I agree that the top-up we are talking about helps people who are really in need of that help. These are people who are spending more than 30% of their income on their accommodation, on their rent. If someone were to tell them that $500 is not enough, they would say that it would be a big help.

We need to tackle the housing situation. The NDP wants the government to build 500,000 units of affordable housing to catch up to where we should have been had the federal government not gotten out of the affordable housing game back in the nineties. Yes, there is a lot for us to do to tackle housing and inflation, but Bill C-31 is an essential and very impactful, beneficial bill that would help the millions of Canadians who are struggling with their costs today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can weigh in with his thoughts on what is causing inflation. The Conservatives are railing on about inflation being caused by government spending. Ironically, this is government spending they voted in favour of, but I will park that for a second.

[An hon. member]

No, they didn't.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they did. It was 400 billion dollars' worth.

Can this member give us his insight into what he thinks is causing inflation? Does he agree with the Conservatives' principal argument that we should not be spending money on this very important piece of legislation because it is just going to add to inflation, despite the fact that economists resoundingly say it will not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not go into the whole spiel on inflation; I do not have that much time here tonight. However, when we look at the extraordinary profits of oil and gas companies and the extraordinary profits of the big box grocery retailers, it is clear that they have taken advantage of this situation. Because of factors coming out of the pandemic and because of the war in Ukraine, prices have started to rise, and they have taken advantage of that and added their own excess profits on top of it. That is one of the biggest factors in inflation.

Perhaps some of the government spending did cause inflation. If we look around the world, Canada is in the middle of the pack when it comes to how bad inflation is. However, what economists have been saying about the measures we are talking about here tonight, such as dental care for people who need it, a housing top-up for low-income families struggling to pay their rents and the GST rebate that has been doubled, is that those kinds of targeted programs do not cause inflation. If the Conservatives are concerned about inflation rising because of this, the experts will say they are wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today on Bill C-31. From the outset, let me make it clear that I will be voting against this bill, because the NDP-Liberal government is driving up the cost of living. The more it spends, the more things will cost.

In reference to the commentary I just heard, Derek Holt, vice president and head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank, stated:

[I]t seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation.... Any belief that it relieves inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.

That is in reference to the government spending we are talking about here tonight.

The senior economist at the Bank of Montreal said, “We’re not going to deny that there are households seriously in need of help right now in this inflationary environment, but, from a policy perspective, we all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently...inflationary.”

Therefore, I would disagree with the previous speakers that the bill before us today will not impact inflation. I believe it will, and that is one of the primary reasons I will be voting against this bill tonight.

On the dental plan, which is the first part of this bill, I looked at it in the context of British Columbia. On page 4 of the legislation, paragraph (d) states:

they make the application in respect of a person who has received or will receive dental care services the costs of which have not been and will not be fully paid or reimbursed under a program or plan established by the government of Canada or of a province;

We have heard a lot tonight about the top-up being $650, but I am wondering how far that will actually go for children under the age of 12 who could be eligible for the program with parents with an adjusted income of up to $90,000. In the province of B.C., people can qualify for dental insurance, for example, if they are on income assistance. They get $2,000 over two calendar years and an additional $1,000 for anaesthetics, so I really hope that when this bill is studied at committee, the provisions on page 4, under paragraph (d), are looked at very closely in the context of the impact this will have, if any, for the people of British Columbia.

On the second part of the bill, I will acknowledge that $500 does go a long way for many people. One of the concerns I have is about how it will help people who are homeless and did not file taxes last year. Will they be eligible for this money? I do not know. I was thinking, when preparing for this speech, of a man named Darryl, whom I met at the truth and reconciliation event the other day. It got me thinking that Darryl suffered at St. Mary's Indian Residential School, where we had the event. He is homeless. He does have a community. He is supported by the friendship centre, but he still lives on the streets. Darryl is not going to benefit from the support being talked about here tonight.

I would be remiss as well if I did not mention how it relates to affordability. The average price for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver right now is $2,600 per month. That means the $500 will not cover a quarter of what someone has to pay to live in the most populous city in the province of British Columbia. That makes me wonder if this will have the economic impact that the government and the New Democratic Party believe it will have. In fact, I do not think it will have much of an economic impact, although I acknowledge it will, for one month, help those making up to $35,000. However, it will not address the structural challenges impacting the Canadian economy, which allow for prices to rise on a month-to-month basis right now.

I think the Government of Canada could be focusing on some other measures that would actually help address inflation and the cost of living. I mentioned Darryl earlier, from the truth and reconciliation event. What about indigenous solutions? The Auditor General has written many reports about the poor service delivery from Indigenous Services Canada that indigenous people have to deal with on a regular basis.

The other day, I went golfing with my friend Joey from Sq'éwlets First Nation. He talked to me about there being an ever-revolving door of representatives from ISC that his band has to deal with. Why is the government not right now focusing on helping indigenous people build more homes and making it easier to build more homes with Indigenous Services Canada? That could have a really big impact on addressing the affordability challenge and the disproportionate number of indigenous people who lack sufficient housing. That would have a real impact in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

During the last election, the Government of Canada talked a lot about the housing accelerator fund. In fact, it was one of the Liberals' premier promises. They said that by 2024-25, the Government of Canada would build 100,000 new homes by addressing some of the challenges that municipalities face. In other words, that would be red tape.

Here in the House of Commons, the opposition members talk a lot about red tape because it impacts so many of the people we represent. David Eby, who is running for the leadership of the New Democratic Party in B.C., actually agrees with the official opposition and put forward a plan that would cut red tape across municipalities in British Columbia. Even the Government of Canada agrees that cutting red tape would address affordability. Therefore, why are we not talking about something that is going to decrease the biggest expense that people are facing? That is the cost of a home and building homes.

I asked the government the other night how many homes it has built so far under the accelerator fund? They could not say a single one. The government needs to build more homes and work with the provincial governments to cut red tape at the municipal level so we can give people what they want.

The third thing we could do to address inflation relates to agriculture. As members know, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has some of the best agricultural soil found anywhere in the world. We grow blueberries. We grow wine. We produce more milk per capita than almost any other riding in the country. We have a thriving poultry sector. We grow a variety of vegetables as well. We are one of the key agricultural areas in all of Canada.

The other day, I was at the Agassiz Fall Fair, which is a celebration of Canadian and especially British Columbian agriculture. Farmer after farmer who spoke with me said that they were scared. Government wants to increase their input costs, which include insurance because that costs them money, but they said that if the government does what it plans to do they are effectively going to be out of business in some cases. Therefore, the government needs to provide business confidence to our agricultural producers to give Canadians what they want, which is locally grown, nutritious food that will reduce the costs that people are seeing at the grocery store right now.

We are so thankful for and so proud of the agricultural produce in the Fraser Valley and Fraser Canyon regions. The government needs to stand behind our farmers, get out of the way and say that it is not going to increase the fertilizer costs that would impact the rate of production we are seeing. Canada has a special role to play right now in addressing the global food crisis. Let us stand with our farmers. Let us help the world feed itself with nutritious Canadian food.

The fourth thing we need to look at is supply chains. It was just last year that British Columbia was effectively cut off from the rest of the country. With respect to Highway 3, Highway 1, the Duffey, the CP rail line and the CN rail line, we were cut off. The Port of Vancouver had a huge delay after that. What is the government doing to look at the structural transportation challenges that add additional costs to the movement of goods and people in this country? Every parliamentarian would stand behind faster transportation and the faster movement of goods. Let us work together and address that key problem.

The fifth thing that we need to address is the cost of government spending. It goes up and up and up, and people want some accountability. Under the current government the public service has grown by 24%, yet the service delivery has decreased substantially. All of our offices feel that, including immigration, CRA, CPP or whatever it is. Let us work together. Let us improve accountability and hold our public servants accountable to do the job that they are paid to do. Let us work together to see that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much incredible misinformation in that speech that I just do not even know where to begin.

I would point out for the member that at the beginning of his speech he said that spending government money, in particular in this program, would have an inflationary impact. He then later went on to talk about how giving people $500 would not affect the economy, and he said it twice. Which one is it? Is it going to have an inflationary impact or is it not? That is what he said. He should review the tape. Maybe he misspoke.

More importantly, the member talked about housing and said that the federal government should work with municipalities to cut red tape. I worked at the municipal level. I know the way that it works. He knows the way that it works. Every member in this House knows the way that it works. Municipality planning acts and their ability to change zoning and so on and so forth are 100% under the jurisdiction of provinces. He knows that. Why does he come to this place and say that the federal government should work with municipalities to remove red tape? It makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, it makes perfect sense, because the federal government holds the spending purse. It is the federal government that plays a large part in funding every single major infrastructure project across this country. The federal government could say to the City of Vancouver or the City of Surrey that if it wants a sky train, it better increase zoning to allow for affordable homes around transportation nodules.

Regarding the $500 rental subsidy, that would have a big impact on people's month-to-month. I understand that; I have been working since I was 12 years old. However, collectively, would that impact—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I started at nine.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from Kingston and the Thousand Islands continues to heckle me.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I only represent two of the Thousand Islands. The other 998 are primarily the responsibility of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I do not know why he would say “Kingston and the Thousand Islands”.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Just to clarify, I saw the member for Kingston and the Islands and I do not believe he was heckling you. He was talking to another member across.

To remind hon. members, when someone is speaking, please be polite and respectful.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Kingston and the Islands, collectively, the measures before us today, as outlined by two of the big banks in Canada, will have an inflationary impact on the economy of Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of helping municipalities move forward in getting zoning and rezoning dealt with, the NDP was able to force the government to bring forward the accelerator fund. Part of that funding is, in fact, going to be dedicated to municipalities and local governments to help with that. This work is actually going to be under way, although the program is not fully developed and more work will be done.

That being said, the member talked a lot about housing and addressed the housing crisis. One of the issues impacting the housing affordability issue is the financialization of housing, yet real estate investment trusts are getting preferential tax treatment. In fact, they get government support by way of insurance coverage and mortgage coverage.

Would the member agree that the government should stop preferential tax treatment for these corporate landlords?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to the specifics of the financialization and/or corporate preferential tax treatment outlined by the New Democratic member from Vancouver. However, I can say that the rate of home ownership in Canada has decreased to a level that we have not seen in a generation. All political parties, especially mine, want to restore and maintain the hope of young people to have a reasonable chance of owning a home. We want people to be able to get a university or trades education. I want people to have the dream of being able to save up for a home and have a reasonable chance of getting it. That is being eliminated at a faster rate than we have ever seen in the history of Canada, and it is troublesome for our democracy.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member tell the House how hypocritical it is of the government to, on the one hand, want to spend all this money on rent relief and control, and then, on the other hand, on January 1 add significant payroll taxes, not only to employees but to employers? It is also going to triple the carbon tax on April 1. On the one hand it giveth, and on the other hand it taketh away.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the government could is stop raising taxes. People cannot afford food. They cannot afford gas. They cannot afford heat.

Why would the government not just change the personal exemption rate of $13,800, increase it and stop all this wealth redistribution? Let people keep more of their paycheques. That is the best thing we can do to help Canadians who are struggling right now.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I just want to give a quick shout-out. I do not often spend holidays away from my family, but I would like to thank the Ottawa Jewish community for the warm welcome and the meaningful prayer and introspective services that I took part in today.

What happens when young people do everything in this country that they were asked to do? What happens when they do everything they are told? What happens when a 35-year-old who did everything they were supposed to do, who earned a degree, got a job and worked hard, lives in mom and dad's basement or in a 400-square-foot apartment because the price of housing has doubled since the Prime Minister came into office?

Young people have done everything they were asked to do, and they end up trying to keep their heads above water in a housing bubble that is the second largest in the world. As for families lucky enough to own a home, they were paying 32% of their income to maintain that home when the Prime Minister took office. Now, those families have to pay 50% of their income to be able to keep it. There are higher costs, higher interest rates and less money for exactly the same thing in this country.

Canadians have done everything they were asked to do. The government told Canadians not to worry. The government told people that interest rates would not rise for a long time. It gave Canadians the confidence to take out those loans. There would not be anything to worry about. That is what it said.

We are seeing interest rates, the ones the government told us would stay low, go up. We have the highest interest rates in the G7, with rises of 3%.

It is worth repeating: Canadians did everything they were asked to do. The percentage of Canadians who own their home or who are about to own a home is at its lowest level in 30 years.

No government has ever spent more on housing than this Liberal one; the government will tell us that, yet it is a failure by every metric. Measuring success by how much the Liberals have spent and not by how many houses were built in Canada is where we are, yet, with all of those dollars and all of those talking points, we have still seen the doubling of housing prices in this country since the Prime Minister took office. That is a fact.

Knowing all this and presenting the House with Bill C-31 as a solution makes it seem as though the government weighed the political benefit of a proposal rather than the economic one. In fact, it entirely forgot about the economics of this one.

The bill is the latest problem child of an NDP-Liberal marriage that shines at raising Canadians' taxes and the prices they pay on everyday goods. It fails at producing an actual outcome to get people into the housing market. It does not allow them to keep their home or the certainty at the end of the month of being able to keep the lights on in that home.

A flashy headline and an expensive tab for taxpayers is what got us into this mess, and surely members in the House know it is the exact opposite of what we need to get out of the mess. Maybe they do not know.

The problem is that it is not just housing any more. It is the cost of everything. It is the cost of gas. It is the cost of groceries. It is the cost of home heating. They have cobbled together a piece of legislation that will only drive up inflation and of which we will see every single dollar evaporate with the rising cost of that gas, of those groceries and of that home heating.

It demonstrates the government's out-of-touch planning for working families, for small businesses, for seniors and for young people who have become victims of its incompetence.

Economists agree. I am not sure what the conversation is in the House during the debate, but the Bank of Montreal's senior economist recently tweeted, “I think we all know that sending out money as an 'inflation-support' measure is inherently...inflationary.” Those are his words.

Scotiabank was clear. Its expert said, “Any belief that [the government's proposal] will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

The house that no one can afford is on fire, and the minister who introduced this legislation is painting the basement where the 35-year-old lives. Bill C-31 is a political attempt to stay in power, not to help Canadians, and that is a shame.

There is an obvious fact that many members opposite may not see as obvious at all. It is about the other back-of-the-napkin math that is in this cobbled-together piece of legislation. In the entire 80-page Liberal platform from just last year, not one of the pages mentioned developing a dental care program like the one the government is proposing today, so we have to ask what reasoning members opposite have for introducing this legislation at this very moment.

Has there been some sort of epiphany among the Liberal caucus? Have they suddenly been convinced that this is the silver bullet for solving the affordability crisis, which they now admit is here? After seven years of Liberal government and three elections, is now the time for a proposal we have never heard of before?

Is there another factor at play? Frankly, I think there is. Perhaps it is the fact that the government now relies on votes from the NDP to ensure its very existence. The NDP curiously made dental care a centrepiece of its election platform just a short year ago. If this is the case, then do the Liberals believe that this is necessary? Is it the right thing to do, or is it a piece of legislation where $5.3 billion would be prolonging the messy divorce we all know is coming?

We should not only ask how a government has failed to provide the details of this legislation, but we should ask why we would trust a government to create a new program, when it cannot deliver the programs it already has?

The government cannot pay its own public servants. It cannot get clean drinking water onto reserves. It cannot get Canadians passports without giving them an urban camping experience they did not ask for. It cannot ensure Canadian travellers get an app to travel across a border. It cannot assure Canadians that, when they go to the airport, they are actually going to leave on an airplane, and we are supposed to believe that it is going to deliver an efficient, functional, national dental care plan to millions of uninsured Canadians, one that we have never heard of before.

For those following this debate and for those who will vote on this, dental care programs for low-income children exist in all provinces and territories, save for Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, in addition to the 70% of Canadians who are already insured and have coverage.

This program is a political one, and it is designed to fail by a government that has failed to deliver very basic services for Canadians. There would be up-front, direct payments of $650 per year to any family they deem eligible, with no questions asked and no strings attached in the legislation. Then, it is up to the CRA to follow up after the fact and verify the money was used correctly. I would like to know how the government thinks the CRA, which will takes years to fix a minor tax issues faced by my constituents, would have the capacity to verify the proper use of a grant by hundreds of thousands of Canadians, given there has been much to be desired in its ability to do just that with programs in the last two years. It is the wrong approach. We have seen it before, and we know how it ends.

Economists have been clear about the impact of direct payments on the cost of living, and I know members opposite understand there is a cost of living crisis. They have just recently admitted it. From the other side of the House, Canadians will remember that the Liberals told us interest rates would stay low. They told us the carbon tax would not go up. They told us that the problem was deflation, not inflation.

We have record inflation. We have a plan to triple the carbon tax, and we have the highest interest rates since the 1990s. It is time to end inflationary taxes and deficits, give Canadians control of their own lives and put more money in their pockets. Reducing taxes, capping government spending and removing red tape are the best ways to end the inflation crisis we have watched the government impose on Canadians through its high-spend, high-tax agenda, not with bigger budgets, higher taxes or more government.

This entire bill is an excuse for policy in hopes of being remembered in the next election, when that rolls around, and it is just one more drop of gasoline on the inflationary fire. Canadians deserve a government that will put people back into the plan, and the Liberals have proven that they are not that government. Conservatives will not forget that. Members on this side of the House will not forget that, and neither will Canadians. Putting people at the centre of decisions starts with voting against this bill, and I hope members understand the consequences of another broken promise, failed delivery and worse economic hardship for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the supply and confidence agreement between the NDP and the Liberals as though she just cracked a 30-year-old mystery. I think it is pretty well known that the NDP, in order to come together with the Liberal Party to bring forward legislation on behalf of Canadians and to form some stability, made this as one of their requests in the process, and the government agreed do that to work with the NDP. That is how parliamentary democracy works when a party does not have a majority.

I am just curious if the member is aware of that, or if the concept of parties working in a minority situation is completely foreign to her. Perhaps the Conservatives are just upset we did not ask them to form that kind of alliance with us. Perhaps she could comment on that.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually not going to comment on the condescending speech that I just got from the member opposite about how this place works.

What I will comment on is that this plan, or lack of a plan or lack of a dental plan or lack of any details at all, does one thing and one thing only. It drives the cost of everything up in this country and Canadians are suffering. It ought to be clear by now that the Liberals need to do something about it. They need to lower taxes, kill the carbon tax, kill the paycheque tax and stop spending money that we do not have.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know and all Canadians know that the members across the way do not agree with the way we want to put forward policy, but ultimately, at the end of the day, we are trying to create things that are long-lasting. We are trying to create something bigger than ourselves.

Whether we are talking about health care, dental care or pharmacare, which we are going to keep working on, and whether we are talking about long-term, truly affordable housing or child care, which after 28 years of working on it the government finally did, all of these things are long-lasting. Tax credits do not do that. This idea of putting money back into people's pockets through tax credits actually dissolves things, which the Conservatives are trying to do right now. It dissolves the pension plans and dissolves programs like EI, but those are things that workers need. That is what long-term planning is about. We are in a series of crises now because there has not been that long-term planning.

I understand that is a difference we have between our parties. However, I would ask the member across the way if she is here to ultimately create something that will benefit all people equally, which social programs do.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is not the member's position for Canadians to spend more of their money, to have Canadians with more of their money in their own pockets to make the best decisions for themselves, but there is no dental plan here.

Frankly, I would not want the member on my negotiating team, because she did not negotiate a dental plan. There is nothing in the legislation that she is suggesting is in the legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have in Bill C-31 is in fact a path for the dental plan. We are talking about giving families whose incomes are less than $90,000 and do not have access to a dental care plan, with children under 12, that support. Next year, seniors and people with disabilities will also get it. People 18 and under will also get it until we get the full realization of the plan. I am sorry, but the member who says that this is not a dental care plan is simply wrong.

Why are the Conservatives so against people who need supports getting them? Why would they vote against children getting dental services that they desperately need?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the dental care plans for low-income families exist. They exist at 70% across most of the country. If the member opposite read the legislation, she would realize that there are no details in the bill and there is no dental care plan. I expect her to yell behind me, but that still does not change the fact that it is not there.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I see no one rising to speak.

I want to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving and a good riding week. Tomorrow I will be attending my son's graduation from Nova Scotia Community College as an LPN, and I want to wish him the best in his future career. I would also like to thank everybody for their interventions this evening.

There being no further members rising to speak, pursuant to order made earlier today, the debate is deemed adjourned and the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:16 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about proposed Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

As announced by the Prime Minister on September 13, 2022, our government has committed to bringing forward measures that should make life more affordable for those who need it the most. As part of Bill C-31, and if the bill is passed without amendments, the government has committed to implementing a proposed benefit called the Canada dental benefit. The goal of this benefit is to help Canadians with the cost of dental care and to get more money into the pockets of Canadians who need it as quickly as possible.

The federal government believes that Canadians deserve access to dental care and excellent oral care, which is why I firmly support this proposed legislation. We all know that having access to quality dental care is an integral part of overall health, but it can be very expensive for Canadians who do not have dental insurance. Of course, this must change. Under the proposed legislation, and if the bill is passed as written, eligible Canadians with children under 12 years old would receive direct, upfront tax-free payments to cover dental expenses.

The Canada dental benefit would be in place while the government takes the necessary steps to build a comprehensive, longer-term national dental care program. Knowing that a national dental care program must be able to support approximately between seven million and nine million Canadians, people whose situations are completely different, the government is proceeding cautiously by establishing this program in a phased manner. This allows the government to undertake the necessary steps in building this comprehensive, long-term dental care program for all Canadians who need it the most.

An effective and comprehensive national dental program requires discussion with all key stakeholders, including the provinces and territories as well as industry, to ensure that the upcoming program meets all needs and expectations. We must insist on one point: Implementing the Canada dental benefit would allow the most vulnerable Canadians to access financial support as soon as possible in order to begin attending to some of their children's dental care needs.

Let us look at some of the detailed provisions contained in the proposed bill that we have on the table, provisions that are subject to the approval of Parliament.

Families with children under 12 years old who have a net annual family income of less than $90,000 for 2021 would be eligible to apply for the Canada dental benefit. The proposed benefit in Bill C-31 would provide eligible parents or guardians with direct, upfront tax-free payments to cover dental expenses for their eligible children. Per year, $650 would be provided if the family's adjusted net income is under $70,000; $390 would be provided if the family's adjusted net income is between $70,000 and $79,999; and, finally, $260 would be provided if the family's adjusted net income is between $80,000 and $89,999.

Applicants in 2022 would need to meet some eligibility criteria to apply. This would include, of course, having children or being the legal guardians of children under 12 years of age and receiving the Canada child benefit for these children, and needing to attest that the children do not have access to private insurance that covers dental care. If applicants are covered by other government programs, they would need to certify that it is only partial coverage and that they would have out-of-pocket dental expenses for the dental procedures. They would also need to have filed their most recent income tax benefit return. In other words, in order to be eligible in 2022, applicants would need to have filed in respect of taxation year 2021.

The Canada dental benefit would be used for any dental care provided by regulated oral health professionals who are licensed to practise in the applicant's province or territory. The exact care covered by the benefit would be decided between the patient and their oral health care provider.

Under the proposed legislation, and if the bill is passed, the Canada Revenue Agency would administer the payments and facilitate the application processes based on its experience with similar benefit programs and its ability to verify income.

The CRA has significant experience in delivering essential benefits to Canadians such as the Canada child benefit. This expertise will allow the CRA to effectively administer the proposed dental benefit on behalf of the Government of Canada. The CRA is valued for its reliable and innovative execution of tax and benefit transactions. In other words, the CRA is ready to deliver a secure and user-centric experience to make it as easy as possible for eligible Canadians to get the money they need for dental care, while protecting personal and tax information.

I can assure all members in the House that the CRA never stops enhancing the security of its digital services to protect Canadians from fraudulent activity. As an example, security features include multifactor authentication and making email addresses mandatory for those who use the CRA's My Account. Of course, if Bill C-31 is passed, the CRA would lean heavily on a range of existing tools from administering other government programs, as set out in the draft legislation, to conduct compliance, verification and collection activities. As an example, the CRA would ensure integrity and verify applicant eligibility, including applicant's income, child's age and family relationship. Applicants will be asked to save their dental care receipts for a period of six years and to show that the benefit was spent on dental care as intended, in case verification is required.

Finally, Canadians can also be assured that they would receive helpful, fair and trustworthy services thanks to the CRA's people-first philosophy. I encourage all Canadians who believe they could apply for this benefit to sign up for the CRA's My Account and direct deposit, if it has not already been done. I also invite Canadians to update all of their information, such as their address and marital status, on the CRA's online services. However, if a prospective applicant does not have Internet access, they can update their information and will be able to apply for this benefit, by calling the CRA contact centre.

In closing, I am pleased to support the proposed Canada dental benefit as it demonstrates the government's commitment to making life more affordable for Canadians. We must remember that in April of this year, through budget 2022, the Government of Canada committed $5.3 billion over five years and $1.7 billion, ongoing, to help with dental care for Canadians who are unable to access care because of the costs.

This proposed Canada dental benefit is the first stone in the building of our national plan for our fellow citizens who cannot afford the cost of dental care. There are millions of them and these Canadians deserve excellent oral health.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech and the time she took to talk about the importance of especially dental care. I know in my riding, just over a year ago, I sent out a mailer talking about the need for dental care. I was shocked by how many people responded. What was most surprising was how many people actually came to the door. I remember walking into the office and having three seniors waiting outside the door, all of them there to talk about their really important need for dental care and bringing in person the mailer that I sent out, along with their responses.

I am just wondering if this member could indicate why her party, which just, over a year ago, voted against dental care is now in a position of voting for it.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too heard the same things from constituents in my riding as I was meeting with them. Making life more affordable for families across the country includes making oral health care accessible for all. Dental care, I am sure my colleague will agree, is an important part of overall health, yet in Canada one-third of the population cannot afford it. That is why our government is tabling this bill.

The Canada dental benefit would provide dental care for uninsured Canadians. It is important because every Canadian deserves good oral health care. We will continue working with all our partners.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury for her speech.

When we talk about this legislation, we must not forget that Quebec has already had coverage for 10 years and that we need to respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The impact of this bill is questionable, and it has been shown that these cheques may not help improve Quebeckers' dental health. I would like the member to explain why.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. We are working very closely with all of our partners, including the provinces and territories. As members know, every Canadian deserves good care, because that is key to their overall well-being. Our government is on track to keep its promise on dental care.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is one small step toward making real dental insurance a part of our public health care system. It is just the first step.

When is the government committed to including, and will the government commit to, full dental coverage for all age groups in our national health plan?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a first step toward developing a full comprehensive dental program, but we felt it was important to take this first step as Canadians who are vulnerable require it.

I want to share some statistics that have recently come out over the needs that are just so important and why we are taking steps. A campaign led by the Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry suggests that one in five people, and that represents six million Canadians, are not receiving needed dental care due to costs and that only Canadians with financial resources or insurance can experience good oral health. That is why we have taken this first step. It is a recognized first step toward a broader plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, can the member for Sudbury speak about why the children under 12 in her constituency need this particular bill to pass?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know Canadians are feeling the rising cost of living, particularly through higher food prices and rent. While inflation is a global challenge, we are helping families weather its impact by working to put more money back in the pockets of Canadians.

The Liberal Party of Canada and NDP's supply and confidence agreement committed to launching a national dental care program, and the agreement identified launching a new dental care program for low-income Canadians as the first priority action under the health care stream of the agreement. The program is restricted to families with an income of less than $90,000. It is very important because we know every Canadian deserves—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I apologize but must interrupt the member for Sudbury.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-31.

This summer, I spoke with thousands of constituents from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley in person, over the phone and at community events. I met with small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and families. The struggles I heard about from people and small businesses are real and extensive. The fact that we are finally talking about the affordability crisis is a good thing. The members opposite have finally woken up and realized that there is actually a problem that has been very obvious to Canadians, with the exception of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

Inflation is a problem. Canadians are being hurt by it and the Liberal government's policies are making things far worse. It is important to remember how we got here. Back in 2020, the member for Carleton, who was, at the time, our shadow minister for finance, said that Canada was about to face this problem of significantly increasing inflation. He said that the significant increase we are seeing in government spending is going to drive inflation. At the time, those concerns were dismissed by the government, including the finance minister who said she was more concerned about deflation than inflation. She obviously got that very wrong.

For two years, the government has been ignoring the cost of living crisis, but the election of the member for Carleton as Leader of the Opposition seems to have really focused the government's attention. However, the government seems to have turned to a new form of denial. This new form of denial is for them to say that inflation is not its fault and it has nothing to do with it. It says that inflation is happening everywhere and is the result of the invasion of Ukraine and other events, or it is supply chain blockages and the challenges of global supply chains.

It turns out that the Prime Minister's not thinking about monetary policy has had devastating consequences for Canadians. For instance, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Paul Beaudry, recently admitted in a speech just a couple weeks ago that governments and central banks should have withdrawn stimulus measures sooner. That would have kept inflation in check. He said, “It's likely a somewhat faster global withdrawal process could have made all countries better off”.

Just yesterday, Governor Macklem said, “Some of this inflation reflects global developments that we don’t control, but inflation in Canada increasingly reflects what’s happening in Canada. The demand for goods and services here at home is running ahead of the economy’s ability to supply them.” The fact of the matter is that inflation was clearly an issue prior to the invasion of Ukraine. It is also hard to make sense of the claim that the global supply chains are responsible for instances where the goods are produced right here in Canada, yet the prices have been going up.

Global supply chains can hardly be blamed for the escalating price of property and real estate that makes it increasingly difficult for Canadians to be able to afford housing. However, unfortunately, the measures the government has put in place are not moving us forward. They are not actually addressing the fundamental problem. In fact, in some respects, they are just making the problem worse.

I can understand that there is confusion across the aisle when I say that. How can I say the Liberals' well-meaning plan will not only not work but will make things worse? This does not make sense to them. For those who truly believe that budgets balance themselves, I can understand that the concept of inflation must also be a difficult one.

While the government says this legislation will tackle the real issues of Canadians in need of relief, the value of these supports on people budgets will rapidly proceed to nothing. They will evaporate quickly because of inflation and the cost of living crisis. For two years, Conservatives have been warning the Liberal government about the consequences of its actions and how much it would hurt Canadians, and it is hurting Canadians right across the country right now.

While members opposite and their coalition partners in the NDP will undoubtedly pat themselves on the back for handing out $500 rent cheques, which, by the way, most renters would not even qualify for, that is a mere fraction of the increased cost that Canadians are paying just to put food on the table. If the Prime Minister was serious about solving the housing crisis in this country, he would listen to Conservatives and increase the supply of housing.

Our housing bubble is the second largest in the world. We have recently learned that the percentage of Canadians who own their own home is at its lowest level in over 30 years. We have the most land in the G7, yet we have the fewest houses in the G7 on a per capita basis.

The Liberals can pat themselves on the back for spending all of this money on housing, but when we look at the results, we have the fewest houses in the G7, as I said, and among the highest prices, which have doubled under the government's watch. Canadians are now paying half of their paycheques just to put a roof over their heads. I think that it is obvious the government's housing policy has been a total and utter failure.

Conservatives have been talking about precisely where the government could reduce costs, which would directly help to reduce the inflation that is shredding the value of people's paycheques and household budgets.

The government could use a one-for-one rule, which would mean, for every dollar spent, one must find a dollar of savings. It could cancel all planned tax increases, including paycheque tax hikes scheduled for January 1 and tax hikes on groceries, gas and home heating scheduled for April 1. It could cancel the escalator excise tax, which is also scheduled for April 1. That is right, the Liberals even want to increase the price of a beer. It is shameful.

Leaving those scheduled increases on the books will be catastrophic to Canadian and small business bank accounts. Besides government revenues from gas taxes and GST, the reality is that they have already soared due to inflation. While kitchen cabinets are looking pretty bare, the Liberal cabinet is pretty flush.

What is their brilliant solution? It is to send out cheques to people to help them pay the new taxes the government just levied on them. It never ceases to amaze me how the government thinks that raising taxes on Canadians will make life more affordable for Canadians.

Let us change course today. Instead of just printing more money, we need to produce more of the things that money buys; produce more affordable food, energy and natural resources here in Canada; and build more houses. We need to remove the barriers that the Prime Minister has put in place.

The bottom line is that this bill fuels inflation and fails to address the government's excessive spending, which caused this inflation crisis in the first place. This legislation may be styled as an act respecting cost of living relief measures, but this is not a serious plan, not at all, to address the cost of living. It is more Liberal smoke and mirrors. It is an empty PR exercise in the absence of any real plan.

That is why I will be opposing the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that the Conservative Party has made the decision that it is not going to be voting in favour of Bill C-31. Worse, it is going to do what it can to stop the passage of this bill. There are people from Winnipeg, as I am, and children under the age of 12 who are going to emergency health care services because they are not getting the dental work that is necessary. It is an affordability issue in many ways. This legislation is going to provide children under the age of 12 the opportunity to get badly needed dental care.

Why would the members of the Conservative Party oppose the children of Canada who are under the age of 12 being able to receive support in getting dental care, especially when we have so many children going to the hospital to get surgery on dental work?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, do we know who is disappointed? It is the middle class and those working hard to join it. After seven years of failed government policies, the government has let them down.

The reality is that, if the government was really serious about the cost of living crisis, it would actually take our recommendations. It would not be increasing taxes on Canadians at a time when prices are going up for Canadians. It would stop the tripling of the carbon tax. It would stop the paycheque tax, and for heaven's sake, somebody has to tell it not to increase the price of beer again.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right about one thing, and that is the fact that inflation, especially in the housing market, is a very serious problem.

In addition to housing costs, which increased by 20% in the Montreal area during the pandemic, there is the issue of housing accessibility. It is not enough to have affordable housing; units actually have to be available. If they are built, they will likely be less expensive, because that depends on supply and demand.

Scotiabank, which is not necessarily an organization that advocates for more social housing, released a report in early 2022 saying that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units over the next 10 years to match the G7 average. That is a huge amount.

What solutions are the Conservatives offering?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a housing crisis in this country, and the fact of the matter is that the purported supports for rent in this bill would not go nearly far enough. If the government really wanted to tackle the affordability crisis, it would stop the tripling of the carbon tax, stop the hike in paycheque taxes, halt the excise tax increase and not bring in any new taxes. That is what would help Canadians the most at this very difficult time.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. It was well thought out and well prepared.

It was interesting to listen to the Liberal member talk about the poor kids. We worry about children dearly in this Parliament. However, the reality is that this legislation has come about because of a backroom deal between the NDP and the Liberals so the Liberals can stay in power.

Does the member not agree with me? Does he see other ways we could help children?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this bill would do nothing to help Canadians. I hate to sound like a broken record, but we need to keep repeating this so the government gets its head around it: It cannot be increasing taxes when prices are going up.

The best way to help children in this country is to leave a bit more of their parents' paycheques in their pockets. That would be the best social support the government could provide, and it needs to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at an affordability crisis for Canadians. and when I look at Bill C-31, I see band-aid solutions. I see no reason to be against band-aids while we look at what comprehensive changes need to take place.

Does the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley not see that there is a benefit in providing some help now, even if it is not the totality of what is needed?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we both have the same idea of wanting to help Canadians, but we just disagree on the best way to provide that help.

On this side of the House, we think that Canadians are overtaxed, and the best thing the government could do right now is not raise taxes on Canadians when the cost of everything is going up. It needs to not triple the carbon tax, not increase the paycheque tax and stop charging more for beer.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to a very important, but also inadequate, bill.

I am honoured to stand today and recognize the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples. We are on their land.

Bill C-31 represents two parts that would attempt to help Canadians when times are tough. Part 1 deals with dental care and an interim dental benefit and part 2 deals with rental housing and a one-time payment to help low-income renters. It is hard to be against anything in this bill. I hope to approach the two parts in equal measure in the time I have available.

A dental benefit is something that no Green Party member of Parliament could be against. We were the first party to propose bringing dental care into our public health care system. It was a central feature of our platform in 2015. We got it costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, and it would be an enormous cost. We recognized that we would have to start, just as the government would do now, with dental assistance for children under 12, and then move forward to take on more. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this area, particularly because dentists as a profession are not keen on moving in this direction, at least those I have spoken with.

However, we know that dental care is an essential part of health care. Without adequate dental care, other illnesses can occur and other diseases can occur. It really does create a poor start in life when our children cannot get access to routine dental care. Therefore, I fully support Bill C-31's interim first step at dental care. It is again a baby step, but it is better than nothing, and it does fulfill, as we understand it, the confidence and supply agreement between the New Democrats and the federal Liberals.

However, I know my constituents are asking, with the health care crisis in this country, if this really is the top-of-mind thing we should be addressing. We know, and certainly this is the case in my community, that many people do not have a family doctor. Many places across the country are seeing emergency services cut back, emergency wards closed some days and ambulance services less available. We are facing a significant public health crisis. This bill, while focusing significant resources on dental care for children under 12, does not speak to the things my constituents are most alarmed about. I wanted to flag that.

I am sure the hon. Minister of Health is well aware that the health care system in this country is in crisis. It is practically in free fall, and it is not just about money, with all due respect to my colleagues who say it is all about transfer payments. The Province of British Columbia, where I live, has received transfer payment increases, but the quality of care has not increased with those payments.

One of the local doctors in my riding put it as wanting to see measurable improvements in what they have termed as, and this is brilliant, the bed-to-bureaucrat ratio. They have seen money come in. Talking to health care professionals, I hear about the layers between the person doing the work, the frontline health care worker, and the boss. There are layers of bureaucracy between that health care worker and that decision-maker, and that bureaucracy expands in layers, but health care does not get easier.

One of my friends, who is a wonderful community nurse on Salt Spring Island, was telling me about going to visit a home where somebody needed help to get a vaccination for COVID. They could not go to the clinic. Two nurses went out. One nurse does the vaccination and the other nurse spends the time trying to handle all the required paperwork. She is with the other nurse, so two nurses are in the same house, and most of the work and most of the stress is on the nurse who has to fill out the paperwork.

We really need an emergency meeting of the federal Minister of Health and all provincial colleagues to look at health care, listen to doctors and to nurses, and fundamentally rethink what we are doing in health care. It must remain public. It must remain single payer. We must not allow the emergency of the moment to allow any further privatization creep into our public health care system, and that is an enormous risk because it is not like it is new.

I will emphasize the risk in Canada, versus a country like the U.K., of the two-tier system.

Canada's deal with the United States, which was NAFTA and is now CUSMA, means that health care in Canada is a market. It is not just about taking care of people, and the enormously and obscenely wealthy health insurance industry in the U.S., which provides a lesser quality of health care than what we get in Canada, looks north of the border. The more we allow privatization, the greater the risk that we will lose our public single-payer health care system.

I will turn to the second part of Bill C-31, which deals with rental accommodations and includes a welcome short-term $500 benefit for rent paid on a principal residence in 2022. It is a band-aid. Let us look at a real solution, and on that I want to compliment and thank my hon. colleague from Kitchener Centre, who has placed before us Motion No. 71. This is an affordable housing strategy, not what Bill C-31 offers with an affordable housing band-aid. This is an affordable housing strategy that targets the real causes of the enormous escalation in the price of getting a roof over one's head in this country.

The motion starts by recognizing that it is “a fundamental human right”, as recognized under the Canadian national housing strategy and also under international human rights law, to have housing, and that housing must be adequate to people's needs. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre, in his motion M-71, identifies correctly the problem with housing and why the prices have escalated.

It is that we stopped having the price of a home, and I say “home” and not “investment”, tied, as it was historically, to what a community can afford. If someone is living somewhere where everybody's income is roughly the same, and that tends to happen across Canada, nobody is going to start charging $2 million in a community where the average income is $70,000 a year. I am just not going to start trying to sell a house there, because I would have no buyers. When homes became disconnected and unrooted from place and when homes become a free-floating investment open to any speculator from anywhere, that disconnection and commodification of a home into investment territory is when we started seeing massive escalations in pricing.

Vancouver was ground zero for this, tied to money laundering, crime and all manner of nefarious activity, but it has spread. We have targeted, and the member for Kitchener Centre with Motion No. 71 targeted specifically, real estate investment trusts. These REITs create investment opportunities, and they are not taxed appropriately. We need to actually ensure that REITs are no longer exempt from paying corporate income taxes.

There is much more we need to do with housing and making sure it becomes more affordable. The current Liberal government in the budget that was tabled this spring takes some baby steps in looking at non-resident ownership, but there are other areas we have not yet addressed. I would urge the government to look at the impact on available housing stock of the popularity of Airbnbs.

Airbnbs create a tremendous opportunity for investors to buy multiple residential properties. They are unlike the tourism industry, the hotels and bed and breakfasts, which have, over decades, had to pay for their insurance, train their employees and keep their employees with good wages. Right now all of those regulated industries in tourism are being undercut by Airbnbs.

They sound like they must be the most lovely things in the world. It is as if we are playing in The Holiday with Kate Winslet and going back and forth to someone's home. It is not. This is a big business, and it is taking a lot of housing out of market availability for young families that want to buy a home and for people who want to rent a room in someone else's house while they come to do seasonal work in the Gulf Islands. Those properties are disappearing to Airbnbs, and we really do need to tackle that.

I commend the government for bringing forward Bill C-31, but I do not think it is preparing us for the economic storms that are likely to come. We have a number of warnings globally of a coming recession. We need to do much more. We need to tax the excess profits of those who are making a fortune while others suffer, particularly big oil, get that $8 billion and redistribute it to Canadians who need it the most.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I really liked the phrase “bed-to-bureaucrat ratio”. However, I think the debt-to-bureaucrat ratio is important. Both the current Governor of the Bank of Canada Tiff Macklem and the former governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge stated this week that inflation in Canada is a made-in-Canada problem. It is the fact that we have more money chasing a lack of goods. At the same time, as I said before, since 2015, the government has hired 61,000 federal employees and has really bloated itself. We are looking obviously at motions. We want to help everyone, but like the member so eloquently stated, we have to do the basics: health care and housing.

Do you agree that we have a debt-to-bureaucrat problem also in government and that we need to address that to solve inflation as much as anything else?

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I would remind the hon. member to direct his questions to the Chair. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually, the current information that we have from the Parliamentary Budget Officer suggests that our debt-to-GDP ratio is not disturbing to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

It is interesting to note the statistic that the member shared of 61,000 employees hired, because when I look at Environment Canada, there was a 10% budget cut in 2012 in Parks Canada, and those people have not been replaced. Some employees have been replaced in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but I look at departments where we are not keeping up with the work, particularly in science-based departments.

Also, I do want to express the concern that most of what we see in terms of inflationary trends has been generated externally. Most of it has been because of the spike in fossil fuel prices caused by Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. There are many elements to our current economic distress, and I do not think that government debt drives most of it.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, previously when we were debating Bill C-31, we were discussing dental care and that this was a first step.

Would the member like to elaborate in terms of a next step that we could look at for dental care for all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see amendments to the Canada Health Act to make it really clear that we understand that mental health is public health and that dental care is public health. We need to look at the totality of what the World Health Organization definition of health has always been, which is a complete state of physical, mental and it even uses the term “spiritual” health. We do not take care of Canadians, and if we are looking for a gap in our health care system, I think the opioid crisis and the mental health crisis point us in that direction.

However, as much as I think it is important to take care of dental care, I think that the steps that would be required to get to full dental care require engaging with the dentistry professional community and with the provinces to determine how we move forward to ensure that no Canadian, regardless of their age, lacks adequate dental care.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. She said that, even though the dental insurance program is not perfect, it is better to send money to people than not send it at all.

With all due respect, I disagree. For example, under this program, families that have insurance cannot collect the benefit even if their insurance does not cover everything, whereas families that pay just a small amount collect the full benefit.

Would it not be more effective to just transfer the money to the provinces, which are in a better position to meet people's dental care needs and can therefore make better use of this money? That would be better than the federal government's misguided approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that the provinces have an important role to play, but, unfortunately, I do not agree with the idea that these decisions should be up to the provinces alone.

We have to participate. We have to work with all levels of government in Canada: indigenous governments, provincial governments, territorial governments and the federal government. We must demand a public health care system that meets everyone's needs. If every province had the right to decide, I would fear for some people.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up here once again on behalf of the residents of Bay of Quinte.

Canada's Bank of Canada governor finally admitted this week that inflation is a made-in-Canada problem not just a global phenomenon. Governor Macklem, this week in a speech to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, said, “Some of this inflation reflects global developments that we don’t control, but inflation in Canada increasingly reflects what’s happening in Canada.”

This echoes former deputy minister of finance for the Liberal Party and former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, who stated two weeks ago that inflation was increasingly a made-in-Canada problem. This unjust inflation is hurting Canadian families, and for Canada, a G7 nation, it is embarrassing that we are seeing families affected by the lack of the essentials, the very basics the government of this country should be looking after: housing, food, paycheques and filling job shortages, which includes our military and housing for our military.

This made-in-Canada inflation problem is costing the average Canadian family with two children $11,000 a year. This inflation problem, this crisis in housing and health care and food shortages are really affecting families to the core. Food bank usage is up. In my riding, it is up 30%, which correlates to a 30% rise in grocery bills. With housing, there is a doubling of homelessness in my region, with 500,000 alone in Belleville. There are farmers who are struggling to pay their bills.

There is the government's announcement for next year, which will be a turducken of taxes during Thanksgiving, a tripling of taxes, including the carbon tax. For a lot of Canadian businesses, we will see rises in interest as we see the bank trying to combat this inflation. Should Canada not, as a G7 nation, need to look after the basics? It has been proven that more money chasing fewer goods causes inflation, a made-in-Canada problem. Should the government not have to look after the basics for its citizens?

This means Canadian families right now are choosing between food, heat, medication and after-school activities. Do we not feel the government should do the same? The government needs to choose where to put its money to be more active in investing in Canada and to ensure we are looking after the basics.

These are things like creating more hospital beds, doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners or making sure our natural resources like liquefied natural gas can go to Europe, create jobs and bring money into this country. Should we make sure that we create housing for our military and that we do not have a gap of 3,600 families waiting for housing on our military bases? Should we not ensure Canadians take home a greater paycheque?

We are stuck here in Parliament debating and, on our side, having to say no to dental care in Canada, a G7 nation, because we have spent so much money on so many things except for taking care of the basics in Canada. When we are spending money, we need to make sure we invest in Canadian basics and the necessities that are helping all families all the time. That means we are going to need to say no, just like families are saying no when it comes to their own bills. Some of them are saying no to food, housing, after-school activities or anything else Canadians need to make choices on for their families each and every day. It is absolutely disheartening.

The government's number one job is to make sure it is taking care of Canadians' basic needs and to ensure that when we are spending we invest in those things Canadians will find helpful and that will help their daily lives and looks after their families. I want to talk about those things.

For housing, there are 500 people who are homeless in the city of Belleville. It takes one step to become homeless. Sometimes it is a domestic dispute. Sometimes it is a rental cheque that was missed, or sometimes it is alcohol and addictions. It is three steps to come out of homelessness. It means we look at shelters. It is a basic need for all Canadians that they at least have a roof over their heads, which is a shelter, but second is transitional housing.

We have an incredible transitional house in Belleville, by the shelter called the Grace Inn. It is called the Shiloh House. It has six rooms and is helping the homeless transition out of shelters and into rentals. It can help with up to six units. It is not easy. It has transitional programs for mental health and addiction. It helps with employment and keeping a job, and it ensures that people are looking after themselves. I toured it a few weeks go, and it was inspiring to talk to individuals who were getting themselves into transitional housing and will eventually find a rental and a home for themselves.

However, it is not as simple as just throwing money at the situation and thinking it is going to fix our homelessness situation. The very basis of people having shelter and being able to find themselves in a home takes three steps. That means we have to work harder. We cannot just throw money at it. We have to ensure we are working with Canadians, municipalities and provinces to move people out.

The third step is affordable housing as a whole. This country is short 1.8 million homes compared to the average of our G7 friends. We know that affects supply. When we look at the average affordable rental housing unit and affordable rent, it has to be about $700 or $800.

I am a hotelier. I have built hotels in the past. I can tell members that the travesty in our housing right now is that we are not seeing affordability when it comes to building homes. The average affordable housing unit that I have seen in Canada is well over $280,000 a unit. In 2015 I built a hotel, the TownePlace Suites Marriott, for $135,000 a door. That included a pool, and there was a kitchen in each room. It had almost everything it could have.

However, affordable housing is so expensive now that it costs $265,000 just to build the unit. There is no way, when developers build affordable housing units for $265,000 a unit, that they can charge rents of $700 or $800. Even if they get 50% or all the funding from CMHC, they still have to charge $1,200- to $1,500-plus for that rent. We have to find innovative ways that Canada can build affordable rental units so that our citizens can afford an affordable market rent.

Housing is a huge issue. It is top of mind. I am very passionate about it. It is something that we need to invest in and spend more time on. Of course, housing and shelter should come before dental care. Let us fix housing and make sure that is a priority.

With respect to food for our families, the average family spends more money in taxes than it does for food, shelter and housing in Canada, a G7 nation. When we look at the fact that we have people lined up for our food banks and what we need to feed those people through our farmers, our farmers are the most important part of that mechanism. They should be invested in and looked after. Instead, what we are hearing this week is that they are paying $45,000 on average in carbon tax per year, but getting back only $862 as a rebate. These are the farmers on whom we depend to grow our food.

By the way, by 2030, the world will need 1.5 times the food we have now. We will need 50% more food. Who grows that food, has the animals and has the farmland? Who fishes? It is our farmers and our farming industry. They need to be invested in. They have good technologies that will help them use the soil to produce double the yields and help them save on labour, because good luck to them finding labourers and employees right now, with one million jobs open in this country. We need to invest in farmers and to make sure that is there.

My last point is with respect to labour shortages. We are one million jobs short in this country, which is costing $30 billion in spiking inflation, because if we cannot get someone to truck our food, make our food and be there to serve our food, then inflation goes up because we have less. There is more money chasing fewer goods, and it is a made-in-Canada problem. We need to invest in Canadians. Unfortunately, we have to make the hard decisions to make sure we look after the basics. That means saying no to some things.

Looking at our future, we need doctors and labourers. We need to help our farmers. We need to make sure we get shelter and housing for our families. That is what we should be focusing on, and that is what Canadians need to be focused on with respect to the current government. That is what we are going to do on this side of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of inflation. There are a number of measures we are taking, because this government takes inflation very seriously, even though, when we compare ourselves to the United States, England and Europe, Canada has a lower inflation rate. Therefore, unlike what the Conservatives try to portray to Canadians, we are doing relatively well in comparison to the rest of the world.

Having said that, we are bringing forward measures to provide relief to people who are experiencing inflation, which is everyone. The bill we are debating today would provide relief for renters in the form of a $500 support. It also provides a framework to enable children under the age of 12 to get the dental care that is badly needed. Why does the Conservative Party want to not only vote against this legislation, but also filibuster it?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is very interesting. I do not know, when you are talking to your residents at the door and telling them that inflation is higher in the U.K., how that helps the family that has to choose between rent, groceries and shelter. I do not understand how you think they understand that.

Residents are hurting and they want to hear relief for those tough things. They want to know their taxes are going to be lowered and that they are going to have more money in their back pocket at the end of the day.

We cannot spent all the money and do all the things and expect that Canadians are going to be helped every step of the way. It has been proven. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that spending the money we have spent, having more money chasing less goods, has resulted in Canadians spending over $900 a month more than they did in 2019.

If your answer is to continue what we are doing, if you want to make it $1,800 or $2,000, our answer is to rein it in. Let us get focused—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for more questions. I would also remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to members.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems concerned about the issue of housing, which I appreciate. I find his interventions on the matter quite thoughtful.

However, he says that the government has to do more than just throw money at the problem. One of the problems with the federal government program right now is that a lot of money is being sent to private developers to build housing that costs $2,200 in Montreal. People in desperate need of housing cannot afford it. At some point, the government is going to need to invest in building housing that people can afford.

What does my colleague think?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a common misconception that government builds homes. Government does not build homes. People build homes.

When I have talked to developers in our region, and I have spent a lot of time on housing, being a hotelier myself and building units, the best programs we could do as a government are zero percent interest loans. They would enable developers to look at solutions so that they can build, making sure they do not lose $1 million when they are building a unit, while hopefully allowing them to build more units that they can then offer for lower rents.

Rentals are what we need. We talk about 1.8 million homes. We talk about people finding themselves at our shelters. They need transitional housing. It is rentals.

The other big thing that we have learned about hotels is that if we have more rentals in Canada, if a landlord is stuck with an empty unit and there are four more empty units, they lower the price point for the unit in order to rent it. We just need more of them. Let us help developers build more rental units.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the population of Nunavut is about 40,000 people. This bill, if passed, would help more than two million people. That is more than triple the number of people who live in Nunavut.

Why is the member against targeted measures that would help all these millions of people in Canada?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are not.

Yesterday the Conservative government voted for tax decreases targeted at our most vulnerable. When we look at how we could help Canadians, we have looked at targeted measures. We just cannot do all of them.

I know the member for Nunavut spoke yesterday about the increasing costs of food, and I believe it is the highest in the region in Nunavut. We need to look at that cost. Looking at the broadest population, how do we help get food to Nunavut and help those populations? I think that is the bigger necessity. I would focus more on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I must be a bit naive and believe in unicorns and fairies. When I first got into politics, I thought that, as an elected member of an opposition party, I would be able to stand up in committee and in the House to propose solutions, to work with other parliamentarians and with the government. I thought we would work together to come up with bright ideas to help people. I thought that, at the end of the day, all the bills would be so great that everyone would want to vote for us all at once. I imagined that people would be impressed by how well we work together and how extraordinary this legislature and this Parliament are. I really thought that.

Oh, how naive I was when I first got into politics three years ago. I thought those things would happen. That is what I expected. I believed in democracy, in collaboration. I am talking about this because the speech I am about to give, I also gave three years ago, two years ago, a year ago, and again three months ago. I keep rising in this place to talk about housing. We have proposed solutions. I have talked about how pressing the needs are, how glaring they are. I have said that what the government is doing makes no sense, that it is simply not building enough units for people who really need them. I have given this speech many, many times already, and here I am forced to give it again today. The housing crisis is a major crisis.

At this time, there are three major crises in Canada. First, there is the language crisis. We have seen the Statistics Canada figures. The French language is declining everywhere in Quebec and across the country.

Second, there is the climate crisis, which we talk about all the time. The government continues to invest in projects that make no sense, such as Bay du Nord, which will produce one billion barrels of oil over 30 years and is a disastrous project. Even the UN Secretary-General has said that it is criminal to continue extracting oil. This is not just a Greenpeace or Équiterre supporter saying it, it is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. That surely means something. This man speaks to governments and leaders throughout the globe and asks them to make rational decisions that are in everyone's interest. Sadly, no, the government continues to invest in oil. Today, we learned that the bill for Trans Mountain is $17 billion. That is outrageous. There are high-tech companies in my riding that are developing batteries. In Quebec, people want to build electric vehicles, and electric buses are already being manufactured. This is the energy of the future. It represents the well-paying jobs of the future. We are working for our children. However, we are not moving forward. As much as we keeping talking about it, nothing is happening. The spirit of collaboration that I naively hoped would emerge from our debates is just not there.

Third, there is the housing crisis. I am not sure how else to say it. Maybe I should mime it or sing about it. According to Scotia Bank, we need 3.5 million housing units.

I attended a conference organized by the young mayor of Longueuil and the young mayor of Laval. By the way, this is interesting: In the last municipal election in Quebec a year ago, we saw young mayors emerge who have their heart in the right place and who want to present real solutions with a view to serving the people, from dealing with the climate crisis to protecting wetlands, or housing or other things. They truly want to find pragmatic solutions. I commend them. I like collaborating with them. They truly have their heart in the right place when it comes to housing.

At the conference I spoke with an economist from the CMHC. He told me that if we do nothing else in Quebec in the next 10 years and allow builders and developers to get on it with, then 500,000 housing units will be built. There will be all sorts of housing types, condos, low-income housing, but 500,000 housing units in total will be built.

Canada is the worst country in the G7 when it comes to housing units per 1,000 people. There are 427 housing units per 1,000 people in the country, but that number went down in the past three or four years to 424. It is crazy when we think about it.

Canada is the worst country in the G7 in terms of average housing numbers, the number of units. That is where the crisis lies. We need to build housing. We need to take action since private developers do not seem to be doing the job.

In short, he was saying that 500,000 units would be built whether the government intervenes or not. An additional 1.1 million units are required in Quebec alone to address the two priority issues of accessibility and affordability. That is another 600,000. The government needs to show concern and take action to ensure that 600,000 units are built. We are far off the mark.

The major national housing strategy provided for $72 billion over 10 years. The government said that housing would get built and that is the direction it would take.

The government always forgets to say that the $72 billion is not just what the government will contribute. A lot of that consists of loans. It also includes investments by provinces, municipalities and agencies. That is worth clarifying.

According to the National Housing Council, 35,000 units were built in the last five years, even though we are halfway through the strategy's timeline. Another 600,000 units need to be built in Quebec alone. We are clearly far from our goal.

About 60,000 units have been renovated. Let us call it 100,000, to be optimistic. There are 100,000 units that have been built. That is not even close to what we need. The government needs to wake up and face the facts.

I am a dreamer. During the conference, which was held in Laval, I saw something that really impressed me; it impressed everyone there. The former mayor of Vienna came to talk about her city. One hundred years ago, the City of Vienna took the bull by the horns. It recognized that housing was a problem and that governments would have to invest money and tackle the problem head on. Today, 62% of the housing in Vienna is social housing. The citizens pay for it with a blanket 1% property tax. That generates about $350 million per year, and the city continues to build and maintain the housing stock. The buildings themselves are amazing. We tend to think that social housing is for the poor, but people from all walks of life live in Vienna's subsidized housing, from doctors and engineers to psychologists and labourers. There is diversity. There are bike paths and shops that sell organics. It is the stuff of dreams.

Things are not the same here as they are there, but there is certainly a need. I keep visiting organizations all over the place.

That is the cause of the crisis. The government did understand this at one time. It realized it had to invest in social housing. After World War II, the government launched major programs. They were eliminated in 1993. The Conservatives said that they were ending the programs and would no longer be investing in housing. On the campaign trail, Jean Chrétien said that the Liberals would reinstate this program and that it was important. Once he was elected, however, he cut the program.

Had the government continued to invest as much as it did between 1950 and 1993, there would be an additional 80,000 social housing units in Quebec alone. We could have housed so many people with that many more units, but that is not what happened.

In Longueuil alone, it would take $500 million to solve the housing crisis. A mayoral candidate talked about this at a debate last year. I think the figures were about right. There is a shortage of 2,000 social housing units just in Longueuil, 23,000 in Montreal and 50,000 in Quebec. These people are inadequately housed.

Let us talk about the $500 that this bill provides. It is not a bad thing. Who could be against it? Had we invested earlier, however, we would not have to be handing out these amounts and people would have housing.

Obviously, I am not an economist. I have incredibly brilliant colleagues who could explain this much better than me. If there were more housing, the housing units we have would cost less. It is pretty straightforward. Even I understand that concept, if my colleagues can believe it. What we need to do is invest in housing.

We support this $500 payment, but if we do not address the current housing crisis in a meaningful way, we will find ourselves facing the same problem again next year.

We will find ourselves right back here next year, but at that time, we will have to send a cheque for $500 or $700. In subsequent years, it will be cheques for $800 or $1,200, and it will never end. We need to implement meaningful measures now to deal with one of the biggest crises that Canada has experienced since Confederation.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speeches are always so enthusiastic, entertaining and really on point.

I have to agree with everything he said, pretty much. I agree that the $500 for rental support is basically a part-time solution, just as the dental care solution in this bill is basically a down payment on a real program that will help all Canadians.

This is more of a comment. I was going to bring up Vienna as an example and then the member mentioned it. I think we in Canada have to look beyond our borders and certainly beyond North America for the solution we need for the housing crisis. One of our problems is that we live next to the United States, which does not provide a lot of those solutions.

I want to thank the member for his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understood whether there was a question in my colleague's comment, but I thank him for his comment nonetheless.

I will take this opportunity to talk about homelessness, which is an important issue. Obviously, if we do not deal with housing, sooner or later there will be homeless people on the street. During the pandemic, the government launched some decent programs to fight homelessness. A very important resource was created in my riding, and we would like to see it become permanent. However, we are not sure whether the government will continue to fund these projects, and we have to be careful about that.

I would also like to say that the government has launched a program that is pretty good. It is called the rapid housing initiative, or RHI. It is a good program because 100% of the housing is paid for. The government contributes all the necessary funding, so organizations do not have to chase down three or four different grants. The government should be putting more money into this program.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will follow the NDP member and thank my Bloc colleague for a very exciting and passionate speech.

I agree on the housing issues, especially with his comment that this is just a band-aid solution that is being put forth. It does not get to the root crux of the need for more housing and for more rental units across Canada.

I have talked about these issues with my constituents when I have had housing task force meetings. What they seem to be okay with, even the developers, in order to increase more affordable units across the country and across the riding is putting in a bit of a mandate for developers so they have to hedge so many units to be affordable. The biggest concern and push-back I got was about whether it would be the same for everybody.

Has the member heard similar stories in his riding?

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a worthwhile measure, but it is up to cities, municipalities and urban centres. In Quebec, some cities, such as Montreal, are trying to do that, and the mayor of Montreal is a huge proponent.

There are problems though. Some local governments impose penalties on developers that do not build a certain proportion of social housing, affordable housing or family housing. A few months ago, I read an article that said developers often try to get around that requirement. They promise that 20% of their units will be affordable, but they do not follow through because they would rather pay the penalties and build condos for the upper class.

That is why it is not a perfect solution, but it is not bad.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to be standing here to speak to this bill. Lots of people are still in the House and I know they are all excited about my speaking to this bill as well.

I want to start off with a quote. What I have been hearing for the last number of weeks is that we do not care about children. I want to read from something that I received this morning. It was sent to every member of Parliament. I really hope that government members are listening and reading their emails. This is a letter from Children First Canada which states, “Once ranked 10th amongst the OECD for the well-being of children, Canada has fallen sharply to 30th place. Children First Canada's latest raised-in-Canada research suggests Canada has reached a critical tipping point. Many children do not make it to their 18th birthday. The infant mortality rate in Canada is higher than in most wealthy countries and the leading cause of childhood deaths include preventable injuries, suicide and homicide. Those that do not survive are not thriving. One-half of kids experience poor mental health in the form of depression, one-third experience bullying, one-quarter experience sexual harassment or assault in school before reaching grade 7 and a fifth grow up in poverty.”

I wanted to read that into the record because we are talking about a program that was introduced earlier this year which I believe has not had the appropriate consultation, especially with the provinces. I would like to ask the government what consultation it did with the provinces. The consultation with the Canadian Dental Association makes it very clear that it is not pleased with this decision.

When I read something like this from the OECD stating that there is an astounding negative impact on our children under the government with its leadership, yet the government is telling us that we do not care about our children, perhaps it should look in the mirror and tell us how we went from 10th to 30th place. That is something really important that we should be looking at. I hope that members are reflecting on that as we have this discussion.

I am coming to this discussion on Bill C-31, the dental and rental bill as it has been called, by looking specifically at the dental aspect. I have applied my education in dental health from 1993 when I graduated and then worked in the field for a number of years, and then once I had children, my understanding of the field as well. I come to this with an understanding of how these programs work, what it looks like as a dental assistant, or a dental hygienist, or working and teaching people how to brush their teeth. I have had the opportunity to work very closely with many dentists, specifically Dr. Charlin Lin in the city of London, where I have seen the importance of dental health.

When we talk about dental health, I would have to say it is one of my top three priorities, absolutely one of the key priorities when we are looking at health care. Dental health falls there, but what we are talking about is a program that we want to have nationally. This is where I applaud the government for understanding that dental health is very important, which it is, but come on. The government is providing a program that is so not beneficial to Canadian families. That is what I want to reflect on in this speech today.

Over 70% of Canadians are already covered under some programs. We know that children, specifically here in Ontario, are covered under a program called healthy smiles. Back when I graduated, it was called children in need of treatment. If anyone wants to debate it with me, they should go for it. I dare them. The fact is that children in need of treatment was an excellent program and was a very important program for low-income people.

I listened earlier to the Prime Minister talk about targeted funding. If we want to talk about targeted funding, the government should do what the provinces have asked for. The provinces have asked the government to expand the already existing programs.

That is why I say that the government has come up with a program that fills this little minute void and looks really great on paper. Meanwhile, it is sitting on $4.5 billion that was announced in last year's budget for mental health and the OECD has said that the well-being of our children has dropped from 10 down to 30 in its rankings. The government is putting forward a program that looks great on paper, but if it were to ask anything about the administrative costs, it would find out that those administrative costs are not going down to our children.

Once again, the government is wasting taxpayers' money. That is why I challenge the government to take a step back, take a look at this program, and start talking to the Canadian Dental Association and the Ontario Dental Association. I have read their reports. I have spoken to dentists and they are not in support of this program.

I will read from the newsletter of an organization, Atlas Dental. It states:

The federal government’s plan for now is both ambitious, ambiguous, and perhaps a little misguided. There are many questions that are yet to be answered before such a universal dental care program comes into effect. Such as exactly how much dental care coverage is each Canadian eligible for? What kind of dental services are covered? Will it be available under public health unit dentists or will it be open to private practice dentists as well?

Some answers are coming out, but at the same time, it does not answer the need.

It goes on to state:

During the 2021 Canadian federal election, the CDA recommended that Parliament conduct a detailed study on improving dental coverage for Canadians, within the first 12 months following the election. In the interim, the CDA recommended an investment of $600 million over the next five years to maintain and expand existing dental care programs delivered by provincial and territorial governments, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations.

The reason it is very important for me to put on the record is I do not know where the support for this program is, with the exception of the government bench. When we talk to dentists, the dental health associations and the public health associations about their needs and what they have asked for, the government is delivering something totally different. and I ask why. Why is the government putting forward a program when people have said this is not the way to do it?

When we look at dental programs, we should look at the schedules. This is getting into the weeds. A schedule is the lab work, the five-digit code that a dentist has to put in and say what it costs. For those working in programs like children in need of treatment or the healthy smiles program, there is a special code. People can go to their dentists, have work performed and there is a smaller cost associated with that.

Many of those programs are covered by Ontario Works, ODSP and an assortment of other programs. We are now going to be putting money into Canadians' bank accounts without actually doing the follow-up investigations that will be needed. If they are following the same schedules, because the government is saying it is going to be public and universal and it is going to be legal to have different schedule fees, what we will find is that they will be paying for a pantograph that will now be two or three times what the cost would have been under the child in need of treatment program. The filling that would have cost maybe $90 is now going to cost $345. It is a program that provides the services that Canadians need and that children across this country have received. Yes, there are gaps, but it would be replaced with a very ill-thought-out program. That is why I am very concerned.

I am going to talk about the rental benefit. I am very proud of my son, who finally moved into an apartment of his own. The cost is $1,400. What a great cost, because it is one of the most affordable apartments that he could find. The average rental cost in my community is over $2,000 and $500 does not even pay for a week's rent in the city of London. This would be a band-aid approach. Meanwhile, we see the housing markets skyrocket.

If we want to look at why apartment rents are so costly, it is because of where the houses are. If we want to compare the facts from 2018 to 2022 and look at what the market range is for real estate, we are going to find in some of our communities that there are differences of $250,000 to $300,000. This is really important to know because for someone trying to rent an apartment whose base cost was originally $345,000 and that person buys a home for $650,000, we all know that rental cost is going to go up. Then we have to add the interest rates that we are going to continue to see.

As members of the Conservative Party have been bringing forward time and time again, we see inflation and more spending by the government. We ask the government to please put a cap on it and to get something done right. It should fix our health care system with good programs and stay away from dental programs until the government gets it right. This is a failure. I hope the government can do better.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House can agree that we want to see good health outcomes for our children. The member mentioned how Canada needs to do better when it comes to our children. This is one step in which Canada can provide dental benefits to children under the age of 12. I would also like to say this is the first step toward getting it right and having a more comprehensive approach in the coming years.

I would like to also inform this House and the members opposite that, on average, in Ontario alone, every nine minutes somebody walks into an ER with dental pain. In 2014, 61,000 people entered ER rooms for dental health issues. We are really going to be cleaning up our ERs by putting this program in place and we are going to help other Canadians get the services they actually need. The average cost of a Canadian going into an ER room is about $513. That does not even include complete procedures or hospitalization if that happens.

Would the member not say this is a great preventative measure and a great first step?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member and all I can say is I am really sorry that she is so off base on this one. I look at the fact that when we are talking about this program, we already have first steps in place.

If we really want to talk about prevention, put that education in the public schools; put that education into parents' homes. That is where it is missing. We do not have the educational programs across our provinces like we once did in the 1970s and 1980s. We have seen some of that being retracted. If we want to teach education, teach prevention, and dental health is part of that.

If we want to talk about first steps, work with our partners. That is our first step. When the CDA says it wants one program and when the provincial governments are saying the same thing, listen. That is where we can do well with these dental programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We learn something new every day and I just learned that she used to be a dental hygienist. She knows what she is talking about.

I have a more specific question for her. Since she was a practitioner and professional in the field, she knows that implementing a universal dental care program takes a lot of time, including to negotiate with the provinces. We know that reaching an agreement with the various professional associations in the provinces is complicated.

In light of this, can my colleague explain to me why the government and the opposition party supporting it are in such a rush to bring in this program when they know full well that it will likely make more people unhappy than happy?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it looks really good in the headlines and it looks really good when we get the government to tell us that we do not care about children's teeth. No, we care about a program that works. We care about the economy. We care about the next generation. When we talk about spending money right, let us talk about the $4.5 billion that has been sitting in the coffers for the last year under the government when we know we are in a mental health crisis.

Earlier today, I heard that one person each week in the city of London is dying of an overdose. That is one person a week. In 2015, I was hearing that about Vancouver, but this has gone across our country. We are talking about dental care when we should really be talking about the opioid crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my hon. friend asked: Where is the support? I can say in all honesty to her that I have never had a more generous outpouring of support and total glee at the announcement of a program than I have had with this one. For the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the status quo is not working.

With respect to my Conservative colleagues, I think they are mixing up Bill C-31 with what will eventually be the program. It is important to emphasize that Bill C-31 is an interim dental benefit until the fully functioning program can come online. It is important to make that distinction and I think it is important to understand that there is room from improvement and consultations.

Right now for the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the status quo is not working for them. Their children need help and they are incredibly happy that I am delivering for them on this promise.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my husband is watching, so to my chicken farmer friend over there, I would like to say to him that we already know that during the federal election, the Canadian Dental Association asked for interim money to put money into a program through the provinces and territories that already existed. That was asked for by the provinces and territories. It was asked for by the CDA.

Yes, people are excited about the headlines, but it is the guts of this bill that is a real mess. Unfortunately, the headline is great, but the guts suck.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know you have had a busy day. It is an honour to have you with us this evening and to see you in the chair until perhaps late into the night.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C‑31. As everyone knows, this bill will make a benefit available to certain families with children, depending on their income, to pay for dental care services. It will also make a $500 lump sum housing benefit available to families who spend more than 30% of their income on rent.

I am not going to do a deep dive into this bill's strengths and weaknesses because I think the members for Mirabel and Berthier—Maskinongé have eloquently made its flaws and weaknesses clear to us all.

I want to talk about my experience as a health care professional, my knowledge of the Quebec health care system, its strengths and the improvements that could be made in the area of oral health. Beyond dental care, it is about the importance of oral health. It is about providing this care to as many people as possible who need it, especially to those who have limited resources and cannot afford the rather high costs involved in going to the dentist.

In my profession, when investments are made in a program or measure, it is important to immediately consider how the results will be evaluated. It is important to look at how continuous improvement is being measured. Is there any evidence that the money invested is achieving the desired goals?

Mr. Speaker, could those gentlemen speak more—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind hon. members that a speech is being given. If they want to talk to each other, maybe they can get a little closer and not talk as loud.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît may continue her speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because I am speaking in French that those who speak only in English are less interested. I wonder.

The idea is that we have to wonder about the money that will be spent when we propose a measure that is fundamentally good. Will the money meet our public health objectives?

In Quebec, we already have a body with the expertise to measure outcomes, and that is Quebec public health. There are researchers and scientists whose jobs it is to do this. I agree that there are dental care needs, but I am not sure that Bill C‑31 will achieve the hoped-for objectives. This came about quickly without any real exploration of the idea and without any way to measure the outcomes.

From what I understand, people will have to file an application, register with the Canada Revenue Agency and submit a receipt that could potentially get lost. Some people will not have access to the Internet. As a member of Parliament, I expect to receive phone calls in my riding. I expect to be told that a claim was filed but the cheque never came, that the receipt was lost, or that an overpayment was made and now needs to be paid back.

If the Minister of Health's objective truly is for children to have access to dental care, why did he not hand over the money set aside for Quebec so that Quebec could improve its own program? In Quebec, children under 10 years of age who are having problems with their teeth can simply use their health insurance card. They go to the dentist, show their card, and the costs are automatically covered. With this measure, we are introducing a more complex administrative process to allow parents to claim the costs for their children. It is not clear how many services will be covered and how this will be measured.

I have many questions, which is why I am not so thrilled about this gag order. We all have a lot of questions, and normally these things are debated in committee and we can look into each aspect of a bill more thoroughly.

When I was young, dental hygienists would come to my elementary school and show us how to brush our teeth. We know that oral hygiene is also a lifelong habit. The idea is to also invest in prevention. Our Quebec system is stretched to the limit. Since arriving here, the Bloc Québécois has kept repeating in the House that Quebec needs health transfers to improve all its health and social services programs as well as the safety net for its entire population.

On another note, now that we have raised the issue of dental care, I am wondering about how quickly this is happening. Usually, consultations are held. When a measure is proposed, criteria are identified to assess whether the objectives are being met. Experts are consulted. At this point, I have the feeling that this step was skipped, and that the government only wanted to quickly seal the deal with the NDP so it could say that it fulfilled its commitment. We have until 2025, here is the cheque and that is done. I feel that this is a botched bill and that we did not have the time required to consult with civil society, scientists and experts.

Regarding part 2 of the bill, which deals with housing, we cannot object to the most disadvantaged people receiving a $500 cheque. I would like to point out that in Quebec, we have had a great program since the 1990s called Allocation-Logement that provides a monthly benefit. For example, a single low-income person over the age of 50 who earns less than $20,800 can receive up to $170 per month to help with their housing costs. This is a significant program that enables low-income, disadvantaged or vulnerable people to make a budget. They know they will not receive a one-time single cheque, but they will get a certain amount each month to help them cover their rent.

I am a health care professional, even though I am on unpaid leave while I do my job here in Parliament. I think it really would have been better for the government to transfer the money to Quebec's Allocation-logement program to enhance and improve it, rather than writing cheques to people who apply for this benefit. It would have been easier for those this measure is intended to help.

In order to get the $500 provided for in Bill C-31, people need to apply for it. They also need to prove that they are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. That is a lot of work for the person applying and for those who have to review their application. We know that the federal government's services to the public are a real mess right now. I am not criticizing public servants; they are overworked. There is a labour shortage and the system is not working right now. The government wants to add to that, and I am worried that the people who need this $500 will not get it.

I think that, if we really want to change things and make people's lives better in terms of things like dental care or housing, we need ongoing core measures, measures that will be around for a long time. People need to be able to understand that there is a beginning and that they can count on government help every month. In essence, the government's job is to create wealth and better redistribute it to the people who need it most.

I feel that we could have used more time to debate this bill. Its substance is good, but the execution is flawed. Unfortunately, I am afraid it was not created for the right reasons. I believe this bill has a partisan, ideological purpose, one that is not necessarily intended to serve the community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I certainly do not agree with her conclusion that our reasons for creating this bill were unethical. I think it is very important that we help people. I am sure that my hon. colleague will agree with me that it is important to help Canadian and Quebec families who are in an unenviable situation, who are less well off and whose children need dental care.

I imagine we can at least agree on the importance of ensuring that these individuals can provide dental care for their children under the age of 12.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

He is right when he says that we both agree that these needs exist. We agree that children throughout Quebec and the other provinces need dental care. We agree that people who are more disadvantaged, less fortunate, those who have a harder life, need support for housing.

However, we disagree on the means being used. We do not think it is a good idea to pass such a significant bill that addresses such an important need so quickly. We think it is a bad idea not to take the time to first consult the provinces, since this falls under their jurisdiction, not to mention the experts, associations and dentists before passing this bill. It would have been better to hold consultations with the aim of achieving the desired result, which is to improve the oral health of children under the age of 12.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]

ᐋ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᔩ, ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑳᕈᒪᓵᖅᑐᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑦᓯᔪᒪᓪᓗᖓᓕ ᓈᓚᒃᑕᐅᔾ-ᔮᖏᑦᑐᖓ ᐃᓄᑦᑎᑐ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᑎᒡ-ᓗᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖅᑲᐅᑎᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᖅᑲᐅᖏᒻᒪᑦ.

[Inuktitut text translated as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin in Inuktitut to make you understand that I am not heard when I speak in Inuktitut. The member spoke in French and this did not happen.

[English]

I wanted to start by speaking in Inuktitut because I was quite offended by the member's comment that when she is speaking in French, she might not be heard. She has an interpreter. I was able to understand her because there are interpretation services.

I want to ask her about the dental care program in Nunavik for Inuit in northern Quebec. What are the conditions of the dental care program? Would there be improvements from this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I offended my colleague. I hope it was clear that, physically, I was not talking about her, but about other members who were speaking very loudly in the House. I found their lack of respect very disturbing and insulting.

I certainly was not talking about her. I know that she is a conscientious member, that she listens to me and is interested in what I have to say. In answer to her question, I just want to tell her that I think every province and territory, including Nunavut, should describe its needs, set up its system and demand the federal funding it needs to make sure all the children who live there get the services they need.

We really think the solution is federal transfers to the provinces and territories so each community can make decisions based on its own needs and its own priorities.

I think that if Nunavut had the resources, it could set up everything it needs. What Nunavut needs is the financial resources to do it. I hope the federal government will give Nunavut what it needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, here we are debating Bill C-31, and I believe that there is a great deal of interest in what is taking place this evening. There is an expectation now, because of the motion we just passed in the House, that Bill C-31 will in fact be advancing and go to committee, where it will be heard.

We hear a lot about the dental care program, and I am going to talk about that, but first I would like to draw some focus to the other issue within the legislation, which is the issue of housing.

We often hear the Conservative Party in particular talk about the issue of affordability in housing, asking and challenging the Government of Canada to do more on the issue of housing. I find it somewhat interesting that the opportunity is there in a very real and tangible way for the Conservative Party to support positive action in regard to housing affordability in Canada, and in this case the Canada rent subsidy. The Conservatives have an opportunity to support that, and they can vote yes on this legislation.

Earlier, I made reference to the dental program, and I asked members on the Conservative side if they did not recognize the true value of this program and the number of Canadians who will benefit by it, and we are talking about kids. When we think of the housing program, we are talking about hundreds of millions, just over $1.2 billion, that would go to support almost two million Canadians in every region of our country to give them some assistance when there is a need for that help.

The Conservatives will talk about inflation and challenge the government to take action to support Canadians, but when we bring forward legislation such as this, which in part is assisting Canadians in dealing with inflation, not only are they voting against the legislation, but they still feel they should be able to filibuster and prevent the legislation from seeing the light of day.

The government is very much focused on the housing issue in all regions of our country. We understand the importance of housing. For the first time in generations, we have seen an actual housing strategy for Canada brought in by the government, and we are talking about billions of dollars over a number of years.

We have seen the enhancement of housing support programs that will provide opportunities, for example, for first time homebuyers. In recent budgets, we have seen an opportunity to be able to expand into housing co-ops, which is a viable alternative to owning a home. In a housing co-op, one is not a tenant, as in an apartment, but rather a resident in the home in which one lives. Literally hundreds of millions are being invested into non-profit housing, which is based on annual income. Depending on the province, I believe it is around 30% or 32% of a household's annual income. These are the types of actions that the Government of Canada has taken with budgets, to ensure that foreign investors are not successful in driving up the cost of housing.

Every one of those measures that I referenced, the official opposition voted against, yet its members will stand up and say we are not doing enough in regard to the housing file.

On the issue of housing, we need to see the different levels of government working together. The national government, on a number of budgetary policy decisions and legislative provisions, has demonstrated leadership in ensuring that there is a strong, healthy role for the Government of Canada.

Really, this is, again, the first time we have seen this in many years, as Stephen Harper never did anything dealing with national housing.

We recognize that there is a need. I have had discussions about how we can actually make new homes more affordable, and those discussions generate ideas on how Ottawa might be able to continue to make a difference, through the Minister of Housing, who has opened his doors, inviting those ideas. The legislation we are voting on tonight, or whenever it comes to a vote, is something that is going to help people, both in the short term and the long term.

That is something I wanted to highlight before I got into what I believe is the core of the legislation, the reason I would challenge each and every member to reflect on the needs of their constituents.

As has been pointed out, what we are really talking about is a dental benefit program for children under the age of 12. In many of the discussions and debates that I have seen on it to date, the Conservatives have said that, well, these provinces have it, this province has it, that province has it, and so they do not need it, and so forth. We even had one Conservative MP who said that her riding does not need it.

At the end of the day, I believe that every riding, all 338 constituencies, will benefit either directly or indirectly through this dental benefit program that is being put forward.

I think it is noteworthy to recognize that this is the very first time we are getting a national program dealing with health care. This has been a government that has focused a great deal of effort, much like we have done in housing, on the file of health care.

I can talk about the discussions that have taken place that Stephen Harper refused to have, in which we saw a health care accord being achieved and in which every province came on side, signing an agreement with Ottawa on health care funding. The amount of health care equalization payments that are going to our provinces is at historic levels. Never before have we seen as much investment in health care.

Never before have we seen a national government that has recognized the importance of mental health or of long-term care. Through this legislation, for the very first time, the national government is saying that if one is a child under the age of 12 whose guardian or parents are having some financial issues and are not able to afford the dental service that is so badly needed, being provided that service in many ways will prevent that child from having to go into a hospital situation.

Whether it is overnight for surgeries or whether it is occupying an emergency space, these are all things on which we can have a positive impact by voting for this legislation. I believe the Conservative Party is being very short-sighted by not recognizing the true value of both the housing supplement program that is in here and the dental benefit program. I would suggest to them that it will come back to haunt them if they do not support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. As someone pointed out, I think he is on his fourth speech of the day. I want to commend him for all of the energy and passion he still has at this rather late hour.

I know that he is a diligent, hard-working MP who loves his community and who believes in its vitality.

Does he not truly believe that it would have been better for the federal government to hold a round of negotiations with his province so that it could be heard and so that the government could establish a program that they both agreed on, rather than imposing a measure that the provinces and some professional associations do not really support?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we demonstrated, whether it is the health care accord or the first-ever child care accord with the different provinces and territories, is that at times there is an absolute need for the government to work with the provinces to implement a program. In this particular situation, it is very much a patchwork. We heard that during the debate, where some provinces are doing better than other provinces.

For the first time, for individuals who are financially challenged or at that lower income, their children who are under the age 12 are going to be receiving a benefit. That benefit is going to prevent many of those children from ever having to go into a hospital situation because they could not afford to get dental work done. It is more important to recognize that fact and implement the program, and I suspect there will be an ongoing dialogue to look at ways in which we can expand the dental care program and benefits.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, we listen to many of the member's speeches in the House, and I appreciate his tenacity and always making sure his voice is heard. I hope he welcomes some of his backbenchers to join the club.

First of all, I want to thank him for his passion around dental care. I know I talk to many people in my riding who share a lot of really sad stories about their children not being able to access dental care, and about taking small children into the hospital and having a lot of teeth pulled instead of cared for in a proper way. These are realities. I am wondering if the member can explain to me and perhaps to the House why in the last Parliament he voted against this program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, timing is something that has to be taken into consideration. For me, personally, I look at the pharmacare program and I believe it would be nice for us to continue to work toward having a national pharmacare program. It was a couple of years ago, I think in September of 2020 or it might have been 2021, I am not 100% sure, when the federal government in the throne speech said we are looking for willing provincial partners to talk about a national pharmacare program. That is one of the reasons, in recognizing the importance of this dental program, we need to be prepared at times to move forward. That is what we are seeing today. Timing is very important. I look forward to how we might be able to continue to expand this particular program.

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

Madam Speaker, I do support this bill. I would like to share with the hon. member what I hear when I ask constituents what their top-of-mind issues are. Health care is right up there. I have never heard them say dental.

If this bill were calling for every family to get access to a family doctor and every community to have ambulances and emergency care, I would not care how many closure motions were used. I would vote for it. However, I cannot support closure motions on principle, and on this one, why this priority now? The wheels are falling off the bus of health care in this country, and I am desperate to see a federal-provincial health accord that makes the difference so that Canadians have the health care we have come to expect—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We are running out of time. There are 18 seconds left, but I will let the hon. member respond with a brief answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a health care accord has been achieved with this government and other provincial jurisdictions, and it is something that continues to be ongoing.

In regard to the dental program, this is a first step. It is recognized that as a result of this particular program we will likely be seeing far fewer children going into our hospitals and using up some of those beds and emergency services, which will alleviate the load and the costs of other health care services. Therefore, it makes sense in many ways.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are broke. That is the state of this country. We are $1.3 trillion in debt and we are having trouble keeping the lights on, so to speak.

Now is not the time for expensive new government programs, particularly when we have a government that is negligent on all of the other things that it is in charge of. I do not have to point very far. Have members had constituents trying to get a passport lately? Folks are waiting months for a passport. That is a basic role of the Canadian government.

The federal government does not have too many jobs. It has to manage the military. It has to manage our border security. It has to manage our justice system. Those would be top priorities for the government. In all three of those cases, it is failing dramatically, never mind coming up with or running new programs.

Here we are, the government has run our credit cards up to the max, and now it is going out and talking about buying a new Rolls Royce, while Canadians are out there trying to figure out how they are going to keep their older car on the road. Buying a new car has become unaffordable for many Canadians, and new cars are hard to come by. Therefore, Canadians are looking at Kijiji and Facebook Marketplace for a used car, and finding out the used car they bought maybe six or seven years ago is still worth the same amount of money they bought it for. These are the challenges.

The member for Winnipeg North just spoke before me, and we heard over and over again about supporting Canadians. There is a difference between when Conservatives say supporting Canadians and when the Liberals say supporting Canadians. When the Liberals say it, they generally mean getting out the chequebook and writing a cheque. When the Conservatives say supporting Canadians, they mean making sure that the systems of government work to ensure that Canadians can thrive.

I reference this more like a tree. If Canada were an apple tree in an orchard of which we got to enjoy the fruit, Conservatives would be concerned about the soil and making sure that the tree got enough water, that the roots were well tended for, that the tree grew and flourished, maybe pruning the tree where it was needed, and therefore watching, expecting and hoping for a harvest of apples. Liberals do not want to worry about all of those kinds of things, they just want to make sure that they can polish the couple of apples that are there to make them really shiny and show them off, while perhaps the tree is dying, there is not enough attention or water coming to the tree, the soil has eroded or the tree has not been pruned in a very long time.

That is where I feel the difference is between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Liberals want to emphasize the fruit without being concerned about the tree the fruit is growing on, the systems that are in place to ensure that Canadians thrive. When Conservatives say they will support Canadians, they mean making sure that our systems in this country operate in a manner so that Canadians can continue to thrive.

We have seen that in the past when Conservative governments were in power. We saw things like crime rates going down, our dollar improving in value, the average working wages of Canadians going up and housing remaining affordable.

We warned the government that, when it did not run balanced budgets, eventually inflation would come into play, and when it was printing money like it was going out of style, eventually inflation would catch on. Here we are in a world of out-of-control inflation, where the cost of living has gone up and where housing is completely unaffordable. Now the government, after causing that problem, is coming in and saying that it will write a cheque to ensure it can eliminate some of the pain we are feeling, and it will come up with a new program.

Going back to my tree analogy, now the tree is half-dead and we have to resuscitate it. We have to go build an irrigation system. We should have been concerned about that a long time ago.

Again, another case in point around this is LNG in this country. When I first got elected back in 2015, there were 15 LNG projects on the books. Companies were knocking on Canada's door, saying that they would like to start an LNG project here in Canada. Today, seven years later, not one of those projects has been built. Again that is one of those cases where there was a lack of tending to the roots and tending to the soil, tending to the things that make our country survive.

Canadians are suffering today. I do not know if members know of something called “stumpot”. It is a good Dutch meal. It is potatoes and carrots or potatoes and kale mixed together. It is kind of like mashed potatoes, but it is all mixed together and typically they put a good bratwurst or sausage on top of it. I hear from people who say they cannot afford the sausage anymore. They are having to go with hot dogs on the top. That is the thing. Canadians are supplementing their diets with inferior products because they cannot afford the food that they are used to eating. That is a real challenge for them.

Now the government is concerned about dental and rental. That is what the Liberals are calling this bill. We see the government once again get out the chequebook of Canada and pull out the credit card of Canada and say that there is not a problem that they cannot solve without spending some more money.

One of the things that we could have in this country is water on reserves. I do not know if members know this, but they put fluoride in most public water systems in this country to prevent dental issues. It helps dental health dramatically to have fluoride in the water. The government, back in 2015, promised that it would have drinking water on reserves. One of the consequences of having water on reserves would be improved dental health.

However, we have seen that this has been a total failure of the current government. The Liberals promised back in 2015 that by 2019 the government would have the water on reserves fixed. Here we are, seven years later, and it still continues to be a problem. That is another example of where the government has failed. Here it is now with a shiny object, a “polishing the fruit” exercise, writing cheques to individual Canadians and trying to solve the problems that it was negligent on or created in the past. That is generally a major problem.

We are seeing in these systems of Canada and in the way that Canada works, that generally these are indications of the health of the society and the health of the system. We generally have conversations about competing systems from one country to another.

The Government of Canada, the Liberal government, brought in a MAID regime that is now being used as an alleviation to poverty. We see that people in countries around the world are writing in horror in their own media. There was a headline just the other day out of the U.K. saying, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” That is a headline coming out of the U.K. Not only has the Liberal government made life unaffordable for Canadians, but it has made a euthanasia regime that is so wide open with holes, that the poor are accessing MAID instead of being able to live in dignity right here in Canada. We see all of those issues going on.

I see this as being nothing more than a vote-buying exercise and a major distraction as Canadians suffer under the weight of this Liberal-made inflation. Now the Liberals come out with a payment scheme that goes directly to members of the public to alleviate some of these problems. I do not deny that $500 would be a dramatic improvement for many people's lives. Nonetheless, going back to my tree analogy, it does not go to feeding the roots, pruning the tree or maybe throwing some fertilizer into the system to ensure that we can enjoy the fruit of the fruit tree by ensuring that our systems operate, by ensuring that we can have clean water on reserves, by ensuring that our justice system works properly so that we do not have to live in a world of crime, by ensuring that we can get a passport and by ensuring that our border is secure.

Therefore, I will not be supporting the bill because I do not think that it tackles the fundamental issues here in Canada.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening attentively to this debate throughout the day. The Conservative members, one after another, get up and talk about how they are going to leave behind 30% of the population, as 30% of their constituents do not deserve dental care. This is their statistic. I do not necessarily agree with it, but 30% of their constituents deserve to be in pain and do not deserve to smile.

I wonder what the hon. member is going to say to his constituents about that, those three in 10, when he gets publicly funded dental care and they do not deserve it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member, who is not from Alberta, which I will forgive him for, that we have a great system for ensuring that everybody who needs dental care gets dental care. I think that is a fact across the country. Many provinces have in place a system to ensure that the people who need dental care get dental care. That is a fact. If there is concern around the funding of dental care, as the Bloc has pointed out, why is the government duplicating some of these systems and not just transferring the money to the provinces?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Earlier, I heard a Conservative colleague say in the House that the government needs to stop spending when she was talking about housing in relation to Bill C‑31. If the government stops spending, how will it solve the problem?

Recently, I was speaking with an economist from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation who was saying that, if nothing is done in the next 10 years in Quebec, 500,000 housing units will be built. However, to address the affordability and accessibility crisis in Quebec alone, an additional 600,000 units need to be built. This is not a problem that is going to solve itself. The government is going to have to invest in housing somewhere along the way.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the interesting things here is that there are many things I think the government can and needs to do, without spending money, to encourage the building of houses. I do not have a really clear grasp on that, but I would say that when it comes to the border crossing at Roxham Road, to go to an example I know a bit more about, the Liberals have always accused the Conservatives of not spending a lot on border measures. However, when we were in power, Roxham Road was not an issue because we had enforcement at the border in Canada. There are many things the government can do to encourage these things without spending money.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am a member of Parliament from Alberta. In Alberta there is no dental care program like the one the member just mentioned. I want to clarify the record there.

However, there are 500,000 Canadian children without dental care right now. It may feel convenient that members of the House, and of course those on the Conservative bench in particular, have these benefits. They have dental care for themselves. They have dental care for their children. Who is paying for it? It is the taxpayer. All we are doing is making sure that these 500,000 Canadian children have the same access.

They deserve dental care. Would the member agree?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to dispute the facts, Alberta Health Services has a dental program for those in financial need. I do not know what else the member is referring to. It is available for everybody who needs dental care in Alberta.

While I am talking about folks in Alberta, what they really need is the economy to be thriving. What they need is pipelines to be built so that we all have good jobs and we can all afford dental care. We do not need a government program to provide it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, you are looking sharp this evening. I am sure it will improve the quality of the debate.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑31. Perhaps I should start by reviewing the principle.

I identify as a progressive. If I were asked whether I would support a dental care program, I am inclined to say yes, as a progressive. I believe that what most progressives want, in practice, is to support people who have a little less social capital than perhaps some other folks, and this is expressed through social policies that tend to be more generous.

This is indeed the case when we think of family policies in Quebec. This is also the case when we think of access to education. Looking at the principle, then, I do think that having a dental care program is a good idea. However, I must qualify that with a very significant “but”.

To explain this significant “but”, I would like to examine the intentions and the motivations of our Liberal and NDP colleagues. When speaking of intentions and motivations, I do not wish to ascribe any intentions, I simply want to see what is the reason for this proposal. People who are rather cynical might say that the only motivation is the deal reached by the NDP and the Liberal Party. I am not going to go there.

In my opinion, the NDP and the Liberal Party may have thought about developing a slightly more generous policy. I am prepared to give them that. However, there is a major problem with jurisdiction. What the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, is proposing does not fall within the authority of the House of Commons.

I will explain the NDP's motivation by referring to a study conducted a few years ago that really struck me. In the early 2000s, there was a pan-Canadian study—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. Some members are talking loudly.

I would ask members to step out into the lobby to have their conversations and to show respect to those who have the floor. I know they would appreciate that if they were the ones speaking.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do encourage them to leave the chamber, since I am sure their conversations are less interesting than what I am presenting.

I would like to get back to the government's motivations. In the early 2000s, a major study was done in several Canadian universities to define Canadian identity. They wanted to distinguish between the identity of Canadians in North America and the identity of people in the United States. When Quebeckers were asked what made them different from Americans, they immediately talked about their culture and language. When Canadians were asked what made them different from Americans, they immediately talked about the health care system and therefore social policy.

That is significant. It speaks to a certain tendency regarding identity. Canadians identify with social policy and yet, when you look at how the Constitution is laid out, all the social aspects fall under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction.

I have the impression that many people in the Liberal Party and the NDP understand that social policies are a strong political driver, that they help parties build up their political base and win the approval of certain segments of the population. Perhaps this is why they are so motivated to bring in a dental care policy.

I think this is very ill-advised because the Liberal government is currently having trouble with its own services. Look at immigration. It is a disaster. Anyone who watched the news today could see there was discrimination. The government often boasts about fighting racism, but we saw that in its own departments there is a form of racism against African francophone students. Eliminating this racism is a worthy fight; it is work that the Liberal government could try to do. We saw that at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

We also saw terrible delays in passport delivery and not a day goes by without a member of our party rising to ask a question about not only the terrible delays with employment insurance, but also the difficulty accessing employment insurance. If the Liberals are so progressive, then why do they not try to engage in this type of action?

Coming back to the motivations of the Liberal Party and the NDP, I would say that the main motivation is more likely the deal between the Liberals and the NDP, which was difficult to reach. I would simply remind members that in an interview with Le Devoir in August, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the government must take time before implementing the type of policy proposed by the NDP. She also pointed out in that article that they had a great deal of difficulty reaching a day care agreement with the provinces.

What the Liberal Party is telling us today, backed by the NDP, is that they are going to fast-track this, that there will be no debate about putting dental care in place, that the bill will be immediately referred to a committee, that we will not have time to discuss it here. Will the same thing happen when the government has to negotiate with the provinces? That is a great concern of mine.

I will stop to drink some water because my lips are stuck to my teeth, and that may not be the best thing for my dental health.

I do not understand why the Liberal Party thinks it is so urgent to pass this type of bill under a gag order, especially since, if we look at what is being done in Quebec, we see that Quebec society is probably one of the most progressive. The progressive aspects of the social policies that we have seen over the past 25 years are generally initiatives that came from Quebec. For example, medical assistance in dying and the parental policy are initiatives that came from Quebec.

In my opinion, it is clear that the Government of Quebec does not need federal initiatives to implement social policies that meet the needs of its population because it has proven itself capable of doing so in the past.

There is one question that needs answering, though. Why is the Government of Quebec not currently implementing its own dental care policy? The answer is quite simple. The Quebec government is not doing so because it is having a hard time meeting its health care obligations with what it receives from the federal government.

I would like to talk about something relatively simple, and that is how the Canadian federation has been undermining politics for decades. I am talking about the fiscal imbalance. This is not something that a Bloc Québécois MP made up. It is something that was carefully studied by a federalist. The Séguin report unequivocally shows that the federal government is underfunding public services without every paying the political price.

My fear is that this dental program will meet the same fate as health care services. The federal government will set up a program, but it will eventually become underfunded. The provinces will have to manage the program, and they will pay the political price. Meanwhile, the federal government will wash its hands of this program in a few years and will have set another precedent that puts pressure on provincial policies.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member for Jonquière's speech. He made some strong, well-researched arguments that I think make sense.

I would like him to explain to me in different words why he thinks that the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, had to impose a major gag order and fast-track the passage of this bill when we know that more time was needed to properly research it, listen to experts and, most importantly, consult the provinces.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my whip for that great question.

I truly believe that the motives of the Liberal government and the NDP leave much to be desired. Obviously, more investments in health would have been good. If we look closely at the bill that is before us, we quickly see that a health care program could be a possibility a few years down the road in a different context. At the stage we are at now, what would be good is if the government would properly fund health care again.

If the government does not want to talk about that, draw things out and give us the opportunity to point out all the weaknesses in its arguments, then the best thing for it to do is impose a gag order. That is what we are seeing today. That is what the government is doing. The explanation is rather simple. This program does not cut it in the current context. The provinces do not think that this program cuts it, and the only way to get the bill passed as quickly as possible is to impose a gag order.

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

Madam Speaker, what is not acceptable is the Bloc Québécois's schizophrenia with regard to this initiative. First, the Bloc tells us that it is very important to provide dental care and that it is a very praiseworthy objective. Then they tell us that we are moving too quickly. These statements do not jive.

We agree with the Bloc Québécois that it is very important to provide dental care to those who need it and we are taking action.

I would ask my colleague to be more coherent on this issue, if possible. First, the Bloc wants us to take action, but then they do not want us to take action. How is that possible?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps my colleague misunderstood what I was saying.

What is really incoherent is forging ahead with a dental care program when home care services for seniors and health care funding are completely inadequate. To me, that is what is incoherent. When my house is on fire, I do not worry about the colour of the curtains. I focus on what needs to be done immediately.

Everyone is in agreement right now, including the provincial premiers. Even all the medical specialist associations and health care stakeholders have gotten involved. Everyone agrees that there is an urgent need to reinvest in health care.

The Liberal government, with help from the NDP, is trying to do something nice as we come out of a crisis by offering a political program that may be necessary, but not right now. That would be coherent. Realizing that health care is underfunded and trying to address that problem would be more coherent than adding a new program.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conversation being held here tonight because we are aware that, even in Veterans Affairs, the government is great at announcing the money but not at getting it out the door.

There are programs already in place, as the member mentioned, in his province, as there are in ours. Does he see this as recreating something that already exists that the government simply needs to support?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not feel that the government is recreating something that already exists. It seems to me that it is interfering in something that is none of its business.

It is up to the provinces to develop a health care system. If they want to do it, they will do it. The federal government should do what it has the power to do, which is transfer money to improve health care funding.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues participating in this debate tonight. I really think that this is an important debate for which Canadians deserve to have true facts.

It is no secret that the pandemic has hurt many Canadians, especially those Canadians who have lost their jobs and Canadians who were unable to maintain their benefits. Unfortunately, their children are now paying that cost. It is no secret that, in addition to that, there are nearly 500,000 children in Canada without that care.

We know that we need to have a responsible plan that actually tackles health care and the crisis that we are in. All members of the House need to understand that, when we are talking about health care, we are talking about dental care. We can, in fact, have both.

We can, in fact, work toward a better, stronger, publicly delivered and publicly accessible health care system in Canada, while also delivering a publicly accessible and publicly administered dental care program. We can ensure that Canadians have that possibility. We can also ensure that our workforce in the health care system keeps up by making sure that we make the necessary investments.

This should never be a discussion about either health care or dental care. It can be both. We are the party that commits to both.

To hear members from the Conservative bench talk about how there are already programs in Alberta is a falsehood. It is not true. We know this, for example, from physicians in Alberta.

There is a physician by the name of Dr. Frank Neves out of St. Albert who said that, during the direct loss of employees at certain companies across the province, they had seen an increase in families unable to pay for their kids' dental care, meaning that they are paying out of pocket. He predicted that three out of every 10 clients in St. Albert, Alberta, were paying out of pocket and were unable to keep up. He also cited that children, in many cases, had to find alternative care.

Additionally, we see low-income Canadians, Canadians who are really struggling right now, having to enter emergency rooms because of infections in their mouths.

Samantha Lowe is from the Mustard Seed, an organization that has great credibility in my community and, I am sure, in many other communities across the country represented by members of the House, including Conservative members who want to see this bill die. She said, “Dental care should be part of primary care”.

When we are talking about primary care, we are talking about the lives of Canadians.

Their lives are important, and this is something they have paid into. They have paid their taxes. They have paid through labour. They have paid so much into the creation and prosperity of Canada, and now is the time. We have to do this. The Liberals have promised this for decades. Now we have forced them to do the right thing and finally deliver.

I also want to talk about some additional facts. Métis people across Canada do not have access to non-insured health benefits that are covered by the first nations and Inuit health branch. They do not have the access, whether they are in rural or even urban centres. Métis people have been historically left out and neglected for generations.

I want to talk about, specifically, my own experience being a Métis child in Alberta. I did not have dental care. I could not have gotten access to it. My parents were unable to secure benefits working in job after job. My dad was a carpenter. When a house was built, it was done, and he had to find another contract. My mom bounced from job to job trying to find security in her work, but was unable to do so. Many Métis Canadians know how hard it is to find employment in rural settings.

My parents did everything they could to make sure I had a good life. Many Canadians right now are doing the very same thing, but just like many parents, they had to make a choice. Was it going to be food or was it going to be dental care? My teeth suffered.

Being a member of Parliament today, I have that privilege. I am immensely privileged to stand here in the House to talk about dental care, knowing that I have dental care provided by the taxpayer, by Canadians.

We see that same privilege has been extended to every single member of the House, and has been for some Conservatives for over 20 years. Now, when 500,000 indigenous and non-indigenous low-income Canadians need this support, we are hearing them say no.

What if we said no to their benefits? We would certainly hear from the Conservative bench about how deplorable it would be for them not to get their benefits, but when it comes to giving that benefit to Canadians, to 500,000 children, we hear them deny them. We must not trivialize the reality of good dental care. It provides an immense relief to parents like mine, who cannot give that to their children.

I know what this is going to mean for the families in Edmonton Griesbach. I know what this is going to mean for the families who are struggling right now and the dignity that they want to be able to give their children. There was a saying when I went to high school that if we started our first job interview with a beautiful smile, we would get to the last question. That is true. People in Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, a G7 country, deserve to know that their dental care needs are met. Dental care is health care. It needs to be treated like that.

Tonight I have heard the Conservatives and the Bloc talk numerous times about how great their provinces' programs are. That is all fine and great. Good job, Quebec, but Nunavut does not have that benefit. People in Alberta do not have that benefit. That is the reality facing Canadians right now. We need this House to be united and know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, no matter what jurisdiction they are in, can actually benefit from a dental care program. That is what it means to bring unity to this House, to do things on behalf of regular working Canadians.

When I was elected in my seat of Edmonton Griesbach, I promised my constituents that I would deliver; I would get results. I am certain that every member in this House wants to do the same for their constituents. This bill is one of those bills that directly help regular working Canadians. It is not rocket science. We are making sure there is a national dental care program by 2025 that makes sure every Canadian has access to dental care in Canada. That is a dream New Democrats have been fighting for, for a long time, and we are finally going to see it.

Many folks have tried before, and I want to thank all the past members of Parliament, but especially the Canadians who keep fighting every day to make sure they have the basic necessities for their health care, like dental care. I do not want to see any more stories from surgeons at the Stollery hospital for children, who tell us their number one surgeries are to help children who have infections in their mouths. That is Canada right now. That is downtown Toronto.

We are talking about a very basic level of human dignity that all children should have, that I should have had as a child, and that many children right now deserve to have. We cannot neglect the fact that people in Canada need this benefit. We need this now, and these children need to know we are there for them.

If we do not pass this benefit, we are going to see thousands of children continue to live without that care, resulting in costs down the road. When we are talking about costs down the road, we are talking about a hospital bed, $3,000 a day, when we could have solved that with a cleaning, with cavities being filled, with a visit to the dentist. These are cost-saving measures. These are important measures for our economy.

I want to make certain that Canadians know that New Democrats have their back and are not going to end this fight. We are going to make sure we end the block put by the Conservative Party on this bill. We are going to get this to committee, and we are going to make sure we get this benefit into the hands of Canadians. That is why I am here, and that is why New Democrats are here.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member this. We have heard from a lot of Conservative MPs who are more than willing to say that three out of 10 of their constituents do not deserve to be covered by dental care, which the hon. member rightly pointed out is a part of health care.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock claimed that all of his constituents received coverage through their program in Alberta. I was wondering if the hon. member could speak as a member from Alberta about that program. Perhaps it is real; perhaps it is not. Could he talk about that and maybe speak to the fact that the Conservatives are more than willing to let 30% of their constituents suffer without dental care, even though they get publicly funded dental care themselves?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question, because it is a matter of truth in this place.

When we are talking about the benefits that Canadians, in particular Albertans, have, dental care is one that they do not have. There is, of course, a program for low-income Albertans in my province. However, one has to pay the copays. That is not free and it is not accessible. One has to make sure one meets the qualifiable income threshold, which also is not accessible. The fact is, there is not a program like this, which is why we need this program now to make sure no child is left behind.

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

Madam Speaker, what assurances does the member have from provincial governments or health ministers in the various provinces that once this program is fully implemented, the provinces are not actually going to eliminate their program, since the federal government is going to have something in place? What assurances did the New Democrats get to make sure that does not happen?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to encourage the hon. member to read the bill. It is a national dental care program that is going to be administered and publicly accessible, which means negotiations with the provinces, in this case, will not have to apply.

However, I want to make sure Canadians understand the nature of the question. The member just said that the provinces could take that money and put it their own pockets. The question I have is this: What assurance does the member have from his province, Saskatchewan, that it will continue to provide the care for children that they deserve?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said earlier that there have been a number of references to the fact that certain provinces already have dental care programs, which may provide partial coverage, and other provinces do not.

However, the government in Ottawa should not be proposing this type of program. If my colleague is interested in social policy programs, my advice is that he run for provincial office. Then he can take his ideas to the right chamber. This is not the federal government's role.

The federal government had a role to play, namely, in providing drinking water to all indigenous communities. I think it is far more urgent to provide water to all indigenous communities than to throw crumbs at a program that will not serve much purpose at the end of the day because the provinces were not at the table.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advice to seek provincial office. I would encourage the member to do the same. It is no secret that the Bloc Québécois's interests are narrow and for the purpose of Quebec only.

I will address the question fully and invite the member to read the national health care act. We have passed it in the House, and we are going to do it again.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about how dental care is health care. I think that too often during this debate we have set up this false dichotomy. Dental care is health care, and that has to be established. It is ridiculous that public coverage ends at one's tonsils and does not go to one's teeth. I wonder if my hon. colleague could quickly expand on that point and add any final thoughts he might have.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his hard work on this file, and particularly on making sure we get this passed.

I want to make a quick mention about what health care is and what it should be in Canada.

Right now, health care stops at one's tonsils, as the member mentioned, and it also stops at one's eyelids. We still have work to do to make sure we have a universally accessible, universally administered public health care system in Canada. We are not there yet, but we are going to keep fighting to make sure that happens.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about our government's plan to improve Canadians' access to oral health care by introducing Bill C‑31.

Budget 2022 allocated $5.3 billion over five years to Health Canada to provide dental care to Canadians whose family income is less than $90,000. Bill C‑31 authorizes the government to start putting some of that money into Canadians' pockets, starting with children under the age of 12, while simultaneously setting up a longer-term system.

Oral health is part of overall health, well-being and quality of life, but we know that going to a dental care professional is out of reach for far too many people in this country. No one should have to choose between meeting their children's dental needs and putting food on the table. We know how heartbreaking it is for parents to see their children suffer, miss school and be embarrassed about the condition of their mouths without being able to give them the help they need.

Many Canadians have dental coverage through private insurance plans provided by their employer, and some families receive support through existing government programs, like all of us here in the House of Commons. However, a large portion of the cost of dental care in Canada comes directly from the pockets of Canadians. Of the $16.4 billion spent on oral health care in 2019, 55% was covered by private insurance plans, 6% was publicly funded through various federal, provincial and territorial programs, and 39% was billed directly to patients.

Roughly one-third of Canadians have no form of dental coverage, and 22% of Canadians say they avoid, or will avoid, seeing a dental professional because of the exorbitant costs involved. These Canadians who do not have access to dental care too often end up needing emergency dental surgery when their oral health condition worsens. Children from low-income families are twice as likely to require dental surgery under anaesthesia. These surgeries are painful for children and their families. They carry risks that are largely avoidable when ongoing oral health services are available. Emergency surgeries are also more expensive for the public health care system.

Our government is working on designing and implementing a new national dental care plan that will enable more Canadians to get the dental care they need. In order to ensure that this plan is robust and fair and that it reflects current needs and realities, the government will continue to collaborate with stakeholders, first nations partners, and the provinces and territories in order to create a plan that meets the needs of Canadians. We have established and leveraged strong relationships with dental professionals, academics, researchers, leaders in the field, and other stakeholders to ensure that we understand the complex national landscape of dental care.

Canadians deserve a plan that works for them. The government is taking the time to get this right. However, we cannot ignore the fact that while we are working hard on creating a long-term plan, Canadian children are currently suffering from the effects of childhood oral disease, with repercussions that could follow them their entire lives. The burden of poor oral health does not affect everyone equally. We know that the children of low-income families are the most affected. That is why we are introducing this bill: to start to break the cycle of poor oral health among the youngest Canadians as soon as possible.

Our objective is to ensure that children under 12 without dental insurance can access the Canada dental benefit before the end of 2022. The target implementation date for the Canada dental benefit is December 1, 2022, pending parliamentary approval and royal assent for the bill, and the program would cover expenses retroactive to October 1, 2022.

To access the benefit, parents or guardians of eligible children would need to apply through the Canada Revenue Agency. In addition, they would need to attest that their child does not have access to private dental care coverage and that they will have out-of-pocket dental care expenses for which they will use the benefit and for which they have not been and will not be fully reimbursed under another government plan. They must also attest that they understand they will need to provide documentation to verify that that out-of-pocket expenses occurred during the period of the benefit. This may include showing receipts to the CRA.

At the same time, our government will continue to work on supporting the oral health of the middle class and those working hard to join it. We will continue to work with our partners and stakeholders to provide dental health care and make life more affordable. Our government will continue to fulfill its role by offering dental coverage to many Canadians.

Through the non-insured health benefits program, the federal government provides dental coverage to recognized first nations and Inuit individuals. The children's oral health initiative provides preventive oral health services to first nations and Inuit children on reserve and in remote communities. The government provides limited dental coverage to people incarcerated in federal correctional facilities and to some newcomers through the interim federal health program. It also makes employer-sponsored dental insurance available to all federal public servants and retirees, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans.

Supporting oral health is a complex goal. There is no simple solution that will remove all barriers to accessing oral health care services overnight. The government will rely on collaboration with the provinces and territories as well as indigenous partners and other stakeholders as we strive to get this right for Canadians.

Some people might be concerned about the cost of this dental benefit and wonder how Canadians can afford it. My question to them is, how can children in Canada afford to miss two million days of school because of oral health issues? How can their parents afford to miss days of work when their kids cannot go to school because of dental issues?

The best time to solve a problem is before it starts. We know that oral diseases often start in the preschool years. What we are doing is prevention. The preschool years are also an important time for establishing good lifestyle habits by making sure families have the means to give their children the preventive oral health care they need. Canadians will experience less pain and distress and reduce their health care costs over the course of their lifetime. When we as adults have a toothache, we go see a dentist right away because we are in pain. Kids under the age of 12 should also go see a dentist when they are in pain.

By supporting this bill, members will make it possible for hundreds of thousands of Canadian parents to seek dental care for their children. The Canada dental benefit will give children a chance to get an existing problem fixed or receive much-needed preventive care, thereby contributing directly to reducing pain, creating more smiles and improving the health of children across Canada.

In closing, we know parents want to do what is best for their children's health. This bill will help them do that. I ask all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this bill so we can make affordable dental care available to Canada's most vulnerable children, giving all children a fair shot at a better quality of life.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about this program. He indicated how it would roll out and the different parts to it. However, having been a businesswoman in the past, what I see if we go ahead with this is we would be creating a structure that already exists across our nation within our provinces.

I would like to know from him, since he is aware of how this will work, what costs are involved for the Government of Canada in implementing and rolling out this program. There are provinces and territories, our whole country, that are ready to put these programs into place and to broaden it out to make sure dental care is in place across our nation for children, as well as adults who are already being taken care of across our country.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course we are working with the provinces and territories. How can they say that the system is working when almost 40% of young people are currently not receiving services? They have to pay for services, so they go without. I am from a rural riding. There are a number of rural ridings where many small businesses do not cover dental care. This bill will make things more equitable. We want equitable treatment in terms of oral health care for young people in every province.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, according to Statistics Canada, in 2018, 6.8 million people avoided visiting a dental professional because of the expense. That was three years ago. It has taken the Liberals this long to create this bill.

I wonder if the member could describe why at this point they have decided finally to implement this national program.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, in politics, there is a time for everything. We campaign, we set goals. We have focused on seniors and the middle class. We wanted to take money away from the rich and redistribute it. We focused on indigenous communities. Together with the NDP, we have reached out, and it is time we worked together to provide dental care across Canada, without neglecting any province, including the territories.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑31 talks about housing. In Quebec, 87,000 people are currently living in social housing with incomes under $20,000, or $35,000 for families. These folks will not have access to the $500 because they pay less than 30% of their income for housing, thanks to the programs that Quebec created because of the federal government's withdrawal from social housing funding 30 years ago.

Does my colleague not agree with many people in Quebec that, instead of investing $500 and sending it to people, we would be better off investing in structural, long-term and sustainable programs to truly house those with inadequate housing in Quebec and in the rest of Canada?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are working together with all the provinces and territories to ensure that all children in Canada can have the same plan.

We are also working with Quebec, which is a model for all of Canada. We are lucky that Quebec's dental plan already covers children 12 and under to a certain extent. Let us follow Quebec's lead.

However, is there any difference between a child from Quebec and a child from Calgary or Prince Edward Island? To me, a 12-year-old child who needs dental care, whether they are from one end of the country or the other, deserves to have the same service.

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

Madam Speaker, we know the expression “read the fine print”, and I say that tonight to start my comments off on this particular piece of legislation because it is something that I find very applicable in a lot of the Liberals' initiatives and attempts over the past few months or so.

I want to give an example. Going all the way back to April, something the Liberal-NDP group has been doing the last several months to try to paint a brighter picture than what they truly have in this country, there was a headline from the industry minister that read, “Government of Canada announces affordable high-speed Internet to help connect low-income families and seniors.”

For $20 a month people could sign up, no problem. The details and the fine print were the important part. After clicking through the link two or three times to get to the details that matter, we found that only a fraction of the demographic who needs support, help or affordability even qualified for the program. It was only for those who receive the maximum GIS or the maximum child tax benefit. There were hundreds of thousands who read a headline thinking that the Liberal government was solving problem x, but the reality is that the impact is far less substantial than it wanted people to believe.

I give that example tonight in the chamber to fast forward to the bill we are dealing with. There is a measure specifically in it, and we have heard in question period, in questions and comments or in the Liberals' speeches tonight that it is going to help alleviate the housing crunch and the rental crunch that Canadians are facing. The fine print is important and the context is key, too.

The average rent per month in this country is $2,000. We are in the midst of a rental crisis, on the pricing and supply, and we are seeing little in the forecasts showing that anything the Liberal government is doing would change that in the short, medium or long term. It is simply an attempt for the Liberals to say, “We are helping alleviate rental housing prices.” They cite it as an attempt of arguing what they are trying to do.

Let us do the math. The average rent is $2,000. Let us not get started about Toronto or Vancouver or larger urban centres. The one-time top-up payment of $500 is what the Liberals are offering. I had a resident in Cornwall say two things to me when they learned of the amount. First, that literally, on average, equals one week of rent. What are they going to do for the other 51 weeks of the year to help with this crisis? Second, they were further upset and disappointed when they read the fine print and realized that six in 10 renters in this country are not even going to qualify for it. Read the fine print with the Liberal government is a key theme that we could echo here in the House over and over again.

We talk about the rental housing crisis in every part of this country. We should have a bill specifically dealing with getting more supply built, a federal jurisdiction that could make a meaningful difference. For example, I want to give credit to my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka for fighting in committee to look at exactly this. Back in my municipal days, we had to work to end exclusionary zoning policies. We could show national leadership on this and get that done.

I always laugh when I am reminded of my time in municipal politics about the three bad acronyms that we have in this country that need to stop if we are going to get serious about real, meaningful affordable housing being built in a decent time frame, if at all. We know the acronym NIMBY, not in my backyard, but there are two others that Canadians need to know and that need to end. They are CAVE, citizens against virtually everything, and BANANA, build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.

We have gatekeepers in Ottawa who are refusing to show leadership to end exclusionary zoning, to end the crisis of building supply, and instead the Liberals and the NDP are going back to their communities saying, “We are not addressing any of that and we do not want to talk about it. Here is a payment that will help for one week of rent, on average, but for the other 51 weeks of the year, we are not sure what will happen.”

We can and we must do better on this. Look at the new dental plan. Actually, it is not a dental plan in the one sense. It is a typical failed bureaucratic Ottawa-knows-best program created in massive haste. I kind of laugh at this. The reason this program was created and this bill is in effect is that the Liberals promised this to the NDP in the deal they signed. I have to be careful the way I word it because I will trigger some people with the words I use to describe the relationship between the Liberals and the NDP, so I will be cautious on that.

I laugh because the New Democrats were stunned when news came out this summer that the Liberals were going to break their promise and could not create this program like they said. Here we are with this piece of legislation, Ottawa-knows-best legislation, that literally creates a duplicate layer of bureaucracy in Ottawa to manage programs, add bureaucracy and everything else when provincial governments already have these programs in nearly every part of the country.

In my home province of Ontario, there is the healthy smiles program for children and in recent years, under a Conservative government, there was the creation of the Ontario seniors dental care program. What we have with this bill to try to satisfy the partnership between the Liberals and NDP is millions and millions of dollars in bureaucracy in an Ottawa structure to administer a whole other program on top of the provincial ones that already exist. I do not mean to be harsh, but my confidence is very low in the government's ability to create a program.

Has anybody tried to get a passport lately? People have not been able to get one. It is taking three to four months to offer a basic service six months after the government said it was going to fix the mess. I can confirm through my constituency office that it is just as bad and chaotic as it was six months ago. Canadians have little faith when they hear Liberals say they have the solution of creating a brand new federal bureaucracy to administer a brand new program on top of the provincial ones that already exist. It is an absolute waste of administration and spending by Ottawa.

What is not addressed in the bills that the Liberals present is what provinces are asking for. Provinces did not ask for Ottawa to create this program and bureaucracy. There are not the promised funds they had on mental health. There are not the promised increases that they asked for and are begging for when it comes to our health care system and Canada health transfers. Long-term care is feeling left behind as well. There is little in the record of the Liberal government to make anybody have confidence in a new program being created.

I will use the last portion of my time in the chamber tonight to reiterate what the Conservative cost-of-living relief plan is. There is an absolute clear contrast with the Liberals and the NDP, who have caused this, through debt, deficit and increased spending. Eight years of that track record and they want to double down on that same approach again.

We have seen great momentum for the Conservative Party and the new leader because we have been talking with a very clear message these past few weeks. There is 40-year high inflation, a problem driven by Liberal and NDP overspending, debt and deficits. I will point out that in this legislation, every single dollar of new spending is not paid for. It is added debt and deficit in new money printing. However, Conservatives have a plan and a contrast that goes the other way.

The carbon tax is scheduled to increase again. It is scheduled to triple. It is scheduled to take more money out of people's pockets on April 1 next year. Our Conservative plan talks about exempting taxes on home heating this winter as people are facing 100% increases in their energy bills. We are asking for the government to show some compassion and not increase taxes on an already burdened Canadian economy and middle class in this country.

The contrast is clear on what we could do for cost-of-living relief in this country. We could allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money to pay for things like groceries, the cost of living, rentals and so forth, or we could double down on the failed approach that has given us 40-year high inflation. We have no confidence in the government's ability to create and manage effectively any new Ottawa program. We could help small businesses. We could help families. We could help control inflation and finally get this economy and cost of living crisis under control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's question clearly shows Canadians the approach of our government under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the approach of the official opposition.

When our government introduced legislation and lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, the Conservatives vote against it. It is very clear who the Conservatives will continue advocating for. What I know is in my community people are looking for a safe and affordable place to call home. People are speaking to me about affordability and the crunch they are facing. People are trying to make ends meet.

We hear the Conservatives talk about it, but they do not want to propose any meaningful solutions. Today we have an opportunity to actually advance another solution. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is another thing to help Canadians through very tough times. It is unfortunate the Conservatives cannot see that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about housing. She said that it is a challenge for her, that it is a problem in her riding, and that it is an important issue, and she is right about that.

Today, I was talking to someone who is very involved in the fight for new social housing in Quebec. This person is very involved with Quebeckers who are less fortunate and poorly housed. This person was pinning a lot of hope on the NDP-Liberal agreement. They thought that if the NDP had signed an agreement with the Liberals, then it must mean that something was going to be done about housing. They were expecting investments. When I told them about the $500 under the Canada housing benefit, they were devastated. They said that this was not the right thing to do and that new housing units need to be built. That is $500 being spent for nothing. Next year, we will have to start over. More housing needs to be built for the future. They were just devastated.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting, because I think there are members within the opposition who are not understanding that this is another investment in Canadians. We have a $72-billion national housing strategy, which is actually building units in communities across the country.

Often, we hear the Bloc saying that housing should be delivered through the provinces, but it does not want to believe in partnerships. The federal government has actually re-entered the housing space. Part of why we were not able to be proactive with regard to the issues we are facing is that certain people do not believe we can do more and work better together.

The federal government will be a partner with provinces and territories. The federal government will work with regions and municipalities. The federal government will be there to support Canadians, because we believe that every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, while the New Democrats welcome this benefit, more short- and long-term solutions are needed to address the housing crisis. I have a constituent in Whale Cove. He is the mayor, Percy Kabloona, who lives in a social housing unit that has not been renovated in five years. His house has split in half, and they use duct tape to keep the wind from coming in. I know that a lot more investments are needed.

Will the government invest in building sufficient units of social or co-op housing, with the necessary subsidies to meet the needs of those in core need?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the stories the hon. member is sharing, we are hearing. I will tell her that the federal government is committed to doing whatever it can.

Today, we are able to see this legislation advance because of a partnership between two partners, recognizing that outcomes matter and that we can work better together in this place.

I hope the member recognizes that the federal government is here to work with members of all parties, as long as we deliver better outcomes for Canadians. I will continue fighting for the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. I am confident that the member will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. We are running out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

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

Madam Speaker, what we are here to talk about late into the evening tonight is a huge inflationary bill. It is a bill that is adding tons of government spending, and I have some serious concerns about it.

One of the spaces where I have some real concern is over the fact that the delivery of health care is the purview and the jurisdiction of provinces. I have heard, many times over, members opposite say that the federal government has a space here because it has the power of spending. That is absolutely accurate: The federal government has the power of spending, effectively, in any space it wants, but the question is whether this is the best way to be spending this money.

My space on this is a serious question, and I have not heard answers from the government. Instead of it being the member for Kingston and the Islands getting up and trying to do a “gotcha” question, I would love to hear answers, perhaps from the Minister of Health, as to what work happened with provincial and territorial governments to see what programs they had in place, so that we looked at best practices and took the best programs that existed in provinces and territories across the country and tried to build on those, rather than create an “Ottawa knows best” scheme. This is all this is.

This is not a dental program. This is not dental insurance. Members from the NDP keep saying that we are voting against this, and that members in the House have dental care. We actually have a dental insurance program, a private insurance program, like many Canadians have. We have a dental insurance program.

This is not a dental insurance program that the government is creating. That would be a dental program. What we would actually be getting is a convoluted program that would deliver money through a CRA application based on income, which would not take into account what I think are important factors, such as how many children are in the family. If we had consulted with provinces and territories, we might have found that provinces and territories take into account some of these things, whether it is a single-parent or a dual-parent family, or how many children there are in the family, some of these pieces. It is critically important.

Dental care does not cost the same in rural Alberta as it costs in downtown Toronto or in rural Nova Scotia. Dental care varies widely even in my own community. If I call dentists, trying to figure out the costs of a dental cleaning, it could vary widely, just in my own community. I think this highlights one of the issues with this program. It puts a lot of weight without actually having the program to support and make sure the children who need this the most are getting it.

We have heard many times over through these debates that 70% of kids across the country have access to some form of dental care through provincial programs that already exist. That means 30% of children do not have access. I am curious as to whether the government did any research to see exactly what that 30% of kids looks like, and how we could support that 30% rather than just make a program that is “one size fits all”, which is the easiest to deliver but does not necessarily put the resources where they are most needed.

Frankly, Canadians are struggling right now: they are struggling to pay their bills at the end of each month; they are struggling to be able to afford to live, and while this would help in the short term, it would not cover the dental costs for a lot of kids who are struggling right now. This might cover a piece or part of the program.

Have we looked into whether provincial governments that currently have programs in place might pull their programs back because the federal government would have this program in place, therefore costing the federal government even more in the long term? This is part of the problem of not working with the provinces and territories and fixing the health transfer.

We have seen all the territorial and provincial leaders sit down and come together to say they want to see higher health transfers. What we have not seen from the Liberal government is meaningful work to get to that solution, meaningful work to build a dental plan. This is a payment scheme at best. This is not actually a dental program.

This is what happens when the members of the NDP-Liberal coalition realize that they effectively have a gun or a guillotine held to their heads so that if they do not deliver on these promises by a certain date, we will be triggered into an election. They came up with a fast solution. I would argue that we need to not be looking at fast solutions. We need to be looking at the best solutions for Canadians. I do not believe that this gets there.

The fact is that this is an omnibus bill. It brings together dental and rental benefits. It is effectively two different departments with two different ministers, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Health, but it is going to the health committee. This is a health bill, even though it talks about a rental benefit. I am not sure how a rental benefit and housing relate to the portfolio of health, but that was how it was decided. Those are some of the decisions that must be made with an omnibus bill, like which minister takes the lead.

I find it awfully rich. When the Conservatives were in power, the members opposite used to complain about the fact that there were omnibus bills and closure motions, yet the second the government came into power, it had no problem doing the exact same thing. It was a simple thing to complain as the opposition, but it was not an ideological space that they were in where they truly were in disagreement with us. They just did not like it being used against them.

I think it is sad that we are sitting here at 11:30 at night discussing a critically important bill that is going to add $10 billion of spending at a time when we already have out-of-control inflation. We already have people who are routinely going to food banks to provide food for their children. Not having healthy food has to be a contributing factor to kids' dental health.

I can only imagine that this is a serious problem, but this is something that the government could have worked on. It could have put actual effort in to create a real program, working with provinces and territories to see which jurisdictions do it best and which ones are doing it poorly. I know in my home province of Alberta we have a dental care program that covers kids up to 18, including certain kids up to 19 as long as they are still in high school. I know that the thresholds are a little bit lower, in terms of the income thresholds, but they do have some qualifications in there for when there are multiple children or if it is a single parent. It even goes as far as adding to the income for the threshold based on how many kids over four children meet the age. I think that is an important qualifier.

I am not here to say that Alberta's program is the be-all and end-all. In fact, I do not know what all the programs look like. I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands really has a problem with the Ontario program and does not think it is sufficient.

What I would love to see would be for the health committee to be tasked with studying what the dental programs are across the provinces and territories and where we could find the optimal solution. That is something that I think has been completely missed in this omnibus bill, this bill that has been set with such strict timelines that we might not even have a real opportunity to have witnesses at committee because of how soon the government is forcing us to go to clause-by-clause.

Frankly, that concerns me. I think that Canadians expect that important pieces of legislation with this level of spending would have extremely high diligence, expertise and hear from witnesses, but not by using stalling techniques or filibustering. Legitimately, we should have more than a few hours to hear from witnesses on a bill that adds $10 billion of spending. I think that is part of the issue. The government is so quick to ram it down our throats and then say that we are stalling the bill.

The actual fact is that I would love to work with all members of the House. I do not think I am speaking out of turn by saying that most members from the Conservative side would like to work with the government, but what we see is this costly coalition continuously ramming its way through Parliament and disrespecting the fact that it is a minority Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, this question has been asked of a number of Conservatives this evening, all of whom have conveniently sidestepped it. I would like to ask this member the same question that has been asked and see if she can provide an answer or if she will sidestep it as all the others have done.

Why are Conservatives completely content with members of Parliament receiving dental care—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

They are heckling me. They are heckling me because they know where I am going with this. I would like to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I know the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is able to answer this, as I have just heard her speech. I would ask members to hold on and allow the question to be asked so the hon. member can respond.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives know where I am going with this, so they are heckling me to drown me out because they do not want to hear the question.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are doing it again.

Why is it that members of Parliament should enjoy the luxury of having dental care, while they are not willing to extend the same luxury to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities?

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

Madam Speaker, that is awfully rich coming from the member opposite, and if he had been here to listen to my speech, and intently listen, he would have heard that I addressed this in my remarks.

Frankly, what members of Parliament receive in terms of dental care is a dental insurance program. This is simply a spending scheme. It is not the same. Please do not misconstrue what this bill would do.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Alberta program she is talking about. I have, unfortunately, had to use that program. The Conservatives are upset with the fact that we are going to be delivering care to over 500,000 children.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, they are heckling right now. That is how badly they want to block this legislation and how badly they do not want those children to get that support. The Conservatives do not want that to happen.

I was raised 20 kilometres south of the member's riding. I had to enlist in that program and did not get the care I needed from that program. That is why this program is needed. Why will she not agree?

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

Madam Speaker, again, if the member had listened to the speech that I delivered, I addressed the fact that I was not sure which program across this country was the best at delivering, but I do know that this is not a program to provide dental care. This is a payment scheme. This is not going to solve the problem long term. This is a band-aid.

Frankly, I want support for the 30% of kids in this country who do not have dental care, but this is not going to solve the problem to make sure that the kids who need it the most are getting it. This is only a band-aid solution so the Liberal government can tell its costly coalition it succeeded.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech quite carefully, and I would ask the member if she would care to expand on one of the points she made, which is the cynicism with which this bill came about.

There is this coalition where one coalition partner put a gun to the other coalition partner's head and said it must give it a dental program. The government puts together this short-term payment band-aid, calls it a dental program, and the other coalition partner pretends that it is a dental program and cheers the government on for it.

Would the member care to comment on the cynicism around this bill?