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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, a very famous songwriter said, “It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.”

The member for Winnipeg North has stood twice today to defend this bill. I do not know if his colleagues are willing to defend it or not. I heard him mention what Canadians want. I seem to recall a promise of 7,500 health care professionals for rural Canadians. That was a priority just over a year ago, but now the Liberal government seems to have lost its way. It is more concerned with propping up the costly coalition.

Where are the 7,500 health care professionals for rural Canada? Are they still a priority, or has the priority shifted to propping up the coalition?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, members of the Liberal caucus understand how important health care is to Canadians. We realize that Canada's national government has a role to play. Talking about health care professionals, we are genuinely concerned and care about the need to have more doctors in our communities and to recognize some of the credentials that are not necessarily being recognized but could be. We are encouraging that.

Whether it is a budgetary measure from the Minister of Finance or it is an issue of credentials by the Minister of Immigration, both of those are active, ongoing files. We are trying to encourage and support provinces and other stakeholders to recognize the skill sets that are there today and to provide financial support to ensure that we can get more doctors and nurses.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely must comment on something I heard from my colleague. Apparently, the Bloc Québécois considers Ottawa to be an ATM.

I have a simple question. Who puts the cash in this ATM? We do. It is our money. If my colleague really thinks that Quebec is just asking for money and not contributing any, why is it that this bill gives us only 13% of the money, when we send over 18% of our money to Ottawa? Some 18% of the cash in the ATM is ours, and that does not include the Quebec abatement, nor does it include the money that we ourselves pay in Quebec for social services that are provided by the provincial government.

Why are we getting only 13% of the money, when we send 18% to Ottawa?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is where I differ with the member from the Bloc. I believe whether someone, let us say a 10-year-old child, lives in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Halifax or Toronto, it would be nice to feel comfortable in knowing they are getting a compatible service. This is where a national government can play an important role.

In regard to the breakdown of budgets, the federal government receives huge amounts of revenue from a wide spectrum of resources. At the end of the day, that revenue is distributed throughout Canada. I do believe that whether it is Manitoba, Quebec or other provinces, we are all getting a fair share of the entire pie. I am not going to be selective on it, but I do believe—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, when I go door to door, people ask why they should vote. There is a lot of cynicism out there and people watch what they sometimes think is a gong show in Parliament. When we ask them what they need, we hear time and time again that people cannot afford to get their teeth fixed. There are seniors with serious teeth problems and young families that are not able to look after their children's teeth.

We made a promise that if we went back to this Parliament, we would get this done. Tonight, we are on the verge of the biggest new investment in federal health care since Tommy Douglas. This is extraordinary. This is actually about putting people first and putting the political antics to the back row, which is probably where the Conservatives belong because they are continuing with these antics.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague how significant he thinks it is that we can show people we can actually deliver something that will make a difference in their lives and the lives of their children.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's discussion here today. I always learn something.

I am concerned. In Quebec, it is a bit different. We already have a dental care program. My constituents would be concerned about whether anything would be taken away from that dental care program. Would anything be taken away from the Canada child benefit? It is a tremendous investment in families in my riding. In being delivered to my constituents, is this program something that would have improvements in the future?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. For the member, in absolutely no way would this take away anything from the constituents whom she represents. The legislation would complement what is taking place in the province of Quebec. That is important to recognize. The second component of the legislation is the rental subsidy. I am sure the member is going to share with her constituents how this legislation overall would make a positive difference.

I appreciate the hard advocacy of the member for her constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of concerns with this. One is that with the exception of a few of our Liberal colleagues who are here, this member of Parliament, our hon. colleague, has gotten up three times on this topic: triple, triple, triple.

I sit on the health committee and the concern I have is that we literally were given two hours to study a bill worth $10 billion. There were two hours for parliamentarians to study a bill worth $10 billion. I do not discount that Canadians are in need of some help because of the costly government. However, the other side likes to talk about working collaboratively. Those members have not worked collaboratively with the opposition. They have actually rammed this through. If anything, all 338 members of Parliament have been sent here to be the voices of Canadians.

Why does my hon. colleague feel it is important to ram a bill through that is worth $10 billion and will be on the backs of Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, a child in Quebec will receive about half of what a child outside Quebec will receive. There is considerable inequity. Why?

It is because we already pay for dental care in Quebec. Quebec taxpayers already pay once for children's dental care and they are going to pay a second time for the federal program, even though Quebec will only receive half the money handed out elsewhere. That is really inequitable.

We could have fixed this when this bill was being studied in committee. The government just bulldozed it through by imposing a super closure motion.

We could also have fixed the rental assistance component. Why is the government refusing to accommodate Quebec?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are some people who would like to sabotage the bill. I argue that there are thousands of people who move interprovincially every year. A child in Quebec today could be a child in Manitoba tomorrow, or vice versa. I would like a program to be there for all children in Canada, no matter where they live. That is what this legislation would do.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, The Economy; the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, The Economy.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to represent the constituents of Regina—Qu'Appelle in opposition to the bill that would add more inflationary fuel to the fire.

I caught the last few minutes of my hon. colleague's speech, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, and I am astounded at how much he can get wrong in just a short 20-minute period of time. However, I give him full marks for efficiency. He crammed a lot of errors and misinformation into one 20-minute speech. I probably do not have enough time to address all of them in my speech because of the sheer volume of inaccuracies in his speech.

I will start by helping the hon. member understand what caused inflation, because that is what this bill is supposed to be about. It is supposed to help address the suffering of families who are experiencing the sticker shock every time they go into a grocery store, a hardware store or any other store they might have to buy goods or obtain services from. Prices they have been used to over the past few years are now much higher. We know the Prime Minister does not think about monetary policy. I am not sure if anybody else in the caucus does that the member leads, but I will help him understand what causes inflation.

The inflation that Canadians are suffering from is directly linked to the massive Liberal deficits that the government chose to run before the pandemic even started. Why do I say that? That is what the Bank of Canada admitted. The Bank of Canada, which is in charge of Canada's money supply, has acknowledged that it was the money creation that it embarked upon in March of 2020, just as the current government was racking up record-high deficits, the biggest deficits Canadians have ever seen. It was on its way to adding more to the national debt than every single other prime minister combined. The government added $500 billion to the national debt.

When the government spends more than it takes in, it has to borrow. It has to find someone who has money to lend to it. That is normally carried out during normal economic times by the bond market. Large investors buy government treasury bonds that are basically IOUs that the government writes after borrowing money from someone who has it and spending it with the promise to pay it back. It is that promise to pay it back with interest that is costing the Bank of Canada money now. As a little aside, the Bank of Canada is now actually losing money for the first time in Canadian history. This has never happened before. However, I will get back to that in a moment.

The government turned to the Bank of Canada and started floating these IOUs, these government bonds, and the Bank of Canada said it would buy the bonds the government was issuing with these massive deficits. The problem is that the Bank of Canada did not have anybody else's money. The Bank of Canada did not have lots of deposits from Canadians or deposits on account from financial institutions that it could use. When I say it did not have deposits, I mean it did not have any of its own money on deposit. It did not have some vaults of cash that it could buy those government bonds with.

What did it do? It had to create the money. It created that money right out of thin air. It exchanged the bonds that other institutions had bought, large profitable banks like the big five banks in Canada and other types of large financial institutions that have accounts with Canada's central bank. They bought the bonds from the federal government and sold them to the Bank of Canada in exchange for brand new money that had never existed before. With little ones and zeros and keyboard strokes, the Bank of Canada just dumped cash into those big banks and large financial institutions and then took those bonds in exchange. That is how the Canadian economy was flooded with over $400 billion of brand new money.

We have seen the effects of that, the Liberal government's trickle-down economics, where it pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the most wealthy and most profitable corporations in Canada: the big banks. It pushed that money through that system. The big winners, when it comes to this type of arrangement, is whoever gets the money first as there is a bit of a lag between rising prices and money creation, because the market has not yet learned that there is a whole bunch of new money chasing the same number of goods. The prices in the grocery store have not yet, at this point, started to go up, and the prices for commodities have not yet, at this point, started to go up.

Those large financial institutions, those massively profitable banks, got to buy up all these assets. They got to push that money through on everything from commodities to real estate to anything else we can imagine, while the prices were still low. They got the new money first, bought as much as they could, and that is when the prices started to rise.

By the time that new money hits Canadians' pockets, it is already too late. The prices at the grocery store have already skyrocketed. We have seen food inflation go over 8% for a couple of months now. The average inflation index, the CPI, has been hovering around 7% for several months now. By the time Canadians start to get the new money the government has created, the prices have already gone up, and that is when those big banks and financial institutions can sell. They make those massive profits on what they can buy low with newly created money and sell high after the inflationary effects are taken into account. That is why we saw record profits during and after the pandemic by Canada's largest banks.

This is the result of the Prime Minister's economic policy, allowing the richest and most profitable corporations in Canada to make even more money, while Canadians subsidize that profit through higher prices in the grocery store aisles. That is why these inflationary deficits are so devastating, and that is why Conservatives are opposed to new measures that force the government to borrow more money to pay for new spending. It is a little like a superficial treatment to a problem.

We can all think of examples of what might look like a course of action that would help with a problem but that actually makes the problem worse. We might have experienced in our lives and have seen public service videos about fire safety where they say to never pour water on a grease fire. However, we can imagine a young child perhaps or someone who was never educated along the lines of fire safety seeing a fire, and we are all taught from a very young age that water beats fire. We put out fires with water, and we always keep a bucket of water if we are having a campfire and things like that. We all understand that. We see pictures of firefighters putting out fires with big hoses of water.

We can imagine someone about to dump water on a grease fire, thinking that they are helping, but we all know what will actually happen. We have to resist the temptation to apply a superficial antidote to a problem. We all know on this side of the House that instead of pouring water on that fire, we have to treat it in other ways. We have to put a lid on that fire and remove it from the heating element. There are others ways to tackle that fire rather than making it worse.

A thirsty person might look at an ocean shore and think, “Boy, I'm so thirsty, I'm going to go down and take a nice long drink of water.” As Homer Simpson taught us, “Water, water everywhere, so let's all have a drink,” but that is not actually how the poem goes. It is “Water, water, every where, nor any drop to drink,” because ocean water makes thirst worse. However, that is what we are seeing with this Liberal government bill.

The member for Winnipeg North gave a speech pretending and trying to convince Canadians that this would help, that while prices are going up in many aspects of their lives, the government is coming along with a way to reduce some costs for them. Where are they going to get the money for that? They are going to have to borrow more money to pay for that, so any benefit that any Canadian might hope to receive under the government's plan that we are debating today will evaporate because of the effects of this new government plan.

In other words, the government is trying to convince us that a government program will help alleviate the problems caused by government programs, and that is where Conservatives come along because we take a more comprehensive look at issues.

The Liberals and their allies in the costly coalition, the NDP who are pushing all this new spending and working hand-in-hand with the government to drive up the costs of living with higher spending and more borrowing to pay for it, is where this is coming from. That costly coalition's approach is always very superficial. We can make the comparison to candy before supper. There is a problem, so here is a simplistic solution: We are just going to have a new government program to dole out more money.

Conservatives understand that we have to treat the fundamental issues that caused it first. We would be doing Canadians a far greater service, including low-income Canadians who are being hit hardest by inflation, if we came to this place every day trying to reduce the cost of government, looking for ways to reduce spending and cutting out inefficiencies, like the half a billion dollars the government tried to give to its friends at the WE organization or the $54 million for the arrive scam app that did not work, was not needed and could have been designed and programmed in a weekend for a fraction of the $54 million taxpayers had to pay for it. The Prime Minister might have looked at ways to visit London where he did not have to charge $6,000 a night for a single room. Those would be the types of things.

We could all come together and every member of Parliament could go back to their offices tonight and scroll through the public accounts, which were just tabled this morning. We could all put our collective heads together to look for ways we could eliminate wasteful spending and bring down that cost of government, so that the government could pay back those IOUs, retire those bonds and take that brand new created money that is floating in the system out of the system to return it back to normal, where that money is backed up by real economic activity and not just ones and zeroes on the computer terminals at the Bank of Canada.

If we did that, we would put a lot more purchasing power back in the hands of Canadians who have worked so hard to earn it. That is why they call inflation the hidden tax, the most insidious tax of all. When the government raises a tax rate, it has to do it in the House for all to see. It has to bring forward a motion or a bill to raise those taxes, opposition parties hold it to account and every Canadian has an elected representative who can vote yes or no, based on that proposal.

However, when the government causes inflation through the Bank of Canada by forcing the bank to purchase those government bonds, there is no vote in the House, there is no debate and there is no accountability. Not any one of us got to read the proposal, make a decision and vote based on our constituents, and our constituents cannot hold us to account because none of that ever took place. It just happens. It happens because those powerful unaccountable officials just made a decision one day, and that is why Conservatives are opposed to this legislation, knowing it would make the problem worse.

There are other ways the government could tackle the cost of living crisis. This opposition has proposed a very concrete proposal, which we should be debating today instead of a bill that would add more borrowing costs on the government and, therefore, lead to even worse inflation.

We are about to head into the winter months, and many Canadians are already getting a taste of what those home heating costs are going to look like over the next few months. I want to take a few moments right now to inform members that the higher costs that Canadians are about to get hit with, and some have already started to experience, are not some accidental outcomes from government policies. These are not unintended consequences. It is not like the government was trying to do something and accidentally caused home energy costs to rise.

This is a feature of the NDP and Liberal coalition's plan to make home heating costs more expensive. They want Canadians to pay more for filling up their tanks and for heating their homes. Members do not have to take my word for it. They have admitted it. They have built a fake environmental policy around the idea of making Canadians pay more for fuelling their cars, for purchasing goods that have to be transported to Canada and for the crime of heating their homes in the winter.

That is what they want. They want Canadians to feel pain when it comes to those types of goods. They admit it. It is in the rationale for the carbon tax. Here is the thing: The carbon tax is not working. Canadians are getting all of the pain and none of the environmental gain. The government has not hit a single target it has set for itself. The people who are concerned about climate change the most should be opposed to the carbon tax the most, because the government has gone all in on a failed policy that, for seven years now, has been proven not to work.

That is why the official opposition and Conservative members of Parliament have been working so hard, since this fall sitting began, to convince the government to do no further harm when it comes to borrowing and spending and driving up inflation, to control some of the things it can control and to cancel the planned tax hikes.

The government's plan is to triple the carbon tax. The member for Winnipeg North might like to make jokes about the Tim Hortons double double, but there is a reason we are highlighting it and a reason we want Canadians to understand. It is because it is already hard enough to make ends meet for the vast majority of Canadians. We are hearing really shocking stats. Canada is a G7 developed country, and 1.5 million people visited a food bank last month. That is unbelievable.

It is a record high. It has gone up 15%. There have been 15% more visits to food banks last month than the month before. It is Canadians who are working, who have two jobs in some cases, and those in double-income households. Because they have to pay more for their mortgage as interest rates go up and costs are higher at the grocery store, they now have to turn to charity at food banks just to be able to feed their children.

What else is very alarming is that food banks are running out too, because Canadians have fewer goods to donate to the food banks. That is the thing about Liberal-NDP coalition economic policies. They lead to scarcity.

When Conservatives are in government, we lower the cost of government. We leave more money in the economy and more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, and that does more good for low-income Canadians, because there are more jobs to fill and there is more opportunity. When Canadians have more at the end of the month, they can make decisions to be charitable. They can fill up those shelves at the food banks so that the less fortunate have more choice, more options and more support when they need it.

NDP and Liberal policies that drive up the cost of fuel, home heating and other essentials and chase away jobs and investment mean there is less at the end of the month for Canadian families to donate to charities, so those families who do need it have less.

That is the constant and unblemished record of failure of the government and its failed policies. That is why Conservatives are fighting this instead of voting in favour of a bill that would just add to the cost of government, leaving Canadians with a situation in which the government has to go out and borrow more, paying higher interest rates.

I mentioned at the beginning of my speech how the Bank of Canada is losing money for the first time in Canadian history. This is the perverse outcome of the bond purchase program the Bank of Canada initiated to help pay for the government deficits. When it bought the bonds, the Bank of Canada bought them at very low rates. The Bank of Canada had lowered its overnight rates as low as 50 basis points; it was down to 0.5%. The interest the government had to pay on the bonds the Bank of Canada holds was at 0.5%.

Let us remember that the way it bought those bonds was by putting large deposits into the bank accounts of the large financial institutions. For example, TD Bank and CIBC have accounts at the Bank of Canada, and there are deposits in those accounts for the bonds the bank sold to the Bank of Canada. As interest rates rise, the Bank of Canada has to pay more interest to those large financial institutions than the government pays the Bank of Canada in interest. That is unbelievable.

This is a direct transfer of wealth: Hard-working taxpayers pay money to the government; the government then turns around and pays the Bank of Canada interest, and the Bank of Canada does not have enough, so it is going to lose money. I believe it has indicated that it expects to lose about $4 billion this year. That is from the bank's website. If the member for Winnipeg North thinks I should not believe everything I read on the bank's website, he should maybe call his friend, Tiff Macklem, and ask him to be a little more accurate.

The question for the government is, is it going to have to bail out the Bank of Canada with taxpayers' money? After taking taxpayers' money to pay interest on the bonds it sold, it will now have to underwrite the difference that the Bank is paying out to other large banks. If we follow the logic here, basically the government is going to have to underwrite the deficits that the Bank of Canada is racking up due to its own deficit spending. It is a triple insult to Canadians, when we look at all the interest that is being paid.

I will close by urging my colleagues on all sides of the House to stop digging when they are in a hole and to not pour water on that grease fire. Let us have no more inflationary spending that will make the problem even worse.

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

Madam Speaker, there are so many questions I would love to be able to ask the opposition House leader, but, due to time limitations, let me take advantage of his economic analysis and ask him to reflect on countries like the United States and England and many European countries, where the inflation rate is higher than it is here in Canada.

Would he draw the same sorts of conclusions, given that some in the western world have taken the ideas from Canada and others? Why do they have the inflation rates they have? Did they have bad policies too?

Why do they have the inflation rate there? Perhaps he could use his same principled economic analysis system.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member for Winnipeg North's mother ever used the expression, “Just because someone's friends go jump off a bridge does not mean they should too.”

It is true. There are other countries that have inflation. They followed the same failed policies the government did. There are lots of times in human history when there seem to be a lot of people making the same mistakes. That does not make it right. To the Canadian who is going through the grocery store aisle and buying things we make here in Canada at inflated prices, it is no comfort to know that other countries are paying higher prices too.

Other countries made the same mistakes. They printed money. They have inflation. Some countries did not print money to pay for their spending. Some countries, like Switzerland, maintained fiscal discipline, and that is why they are not experiencing inflation. That is the reason other countries—

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

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, we had a good, constructive opposition day this week. Throughout the day, both Liberal and Conservative members told us that there was no time to talk about such important issues in the House.

I would like to ask the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle if he believes that the fact that the Liberals and the NDP tripled the number of closure motions in the House leaves us more time to debate such important issues as the monarchy.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy debating philosophical aspects.

I really enjoy esoteric philosophy-based discussions. I studied political science, and it is always interesting to talk about the best way to build a government and have a debate, perhaps over a glass of wine after dinner. However, I am sure that Canadians are more concerned about what their money can buy than they are about whose face is on it.

I basically agree with the member about government motions. We have had a few motions and bills that have nothing to do with the cost of living crisis.

I hope the government will present real solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to do that. There is a big difference between lowering the tax burden on Canadians and new spending. It is as simple as that.

I just want to take issue with one of the major principles with the far left these days and this idea that the government has a big pile of cash and all we are really doing is fighting over how to spend it.

The government does not have a dollar that it does not first take out of the economy, that it does not first take out of someone's pocket.

Is the hon. member comfortable saddling Canadians with more financial burdens and higher costs of government? That cost, the cost for this program, has to be paid for by taxpayers. It adds to the inflation crisis, because the government has to first borrow to pay for it.

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

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle well, and I was in this place and certainly a close watcher of the Harper administration for years. I would like to put to the member that if Stephen Harper had been prime minister at the beginning of the COVID outbreak, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have done exactly the same things the Liberal government did. That is because every economy and central bank throughout the G20 followed the same prescription. It was dictated to us through the International Monetary Fund. I urge the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to check the June 17, 2020 report of the IMF. The central banks throughout the G20 followed all the same prescriptions: low interest rates and fiscal quantitative easing. Any member of the public can check it out.

The reasons for Switzerland's not having high inflation have nothing to do with what the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said. The reasons have a lot to do with the fact that before the war in Ukraine the cost of living in Switzerland was already 51% higher than in Germany, because it has a very regulated economy. It has renewable energy locked in and high electricity prices.

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I will not have enough time to point out all the errors that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands just made in her statement.

I have here the “Economic and Fiscal Update 2021: Issues for Parliamentarians”, from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. While there is no doubt that a Conservative government would have found ways to support Canadians through an unprecedented pandemic, there are lots of ways that governments can do it without running the printing presses at the central bank.

I just want to read a very important stat from the report: “[S]ince the start of the pandemic, the Government has spent, or has planned to spend, $541.9 billion in new measures...of which [$176 billion] is not part of the COVID-19 Response Plan.

That is the major point here. Yes, there was a pandemic. Yes, there were unprecedented actions that governments had to take. However, there were lots of things along the way that the government did not have to do. The Liberal government chose to use the pandemic to try to enrich its friends at the WE organization. It chose to use the pandemic to give contracts out to former Liberal MPs. It chose to use the pandemic to create—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is $10 billion in new spending. There is a $500 one-time payment in it. I was reading an article about mortgage rates, and from October 2021 to May 2022 the average mortgage price per month went up $800. I cannot even imagine how much it has gone up since then as interest rates have continued to go up. I am just wondering what my hon. colleague thinks prices would be like now.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the devastating reality that many Canadians are waking up to in the coming weeks and months as mortgages come up for renewal. I have already heard from friends and relatives of mine who maybe had a 2% or a 2.25% interest rate four or five years ago and are now renewing at 6%, 7% or 8%. Many Canadians are going to be faced with the tragic, sad reality that they are going to have to just toss the keys back to the bank, because they will not be able to make those payments.

The Prime Minister erroneously said to Canadians that the government was going to go into debt so Canadians did not have to. This is how Canadians are paying for it. They are getting stuck with the bill. The Liberals got the party. Canadians are paying the bill, and the sticker shock on that bill is awful. It is one more reason we should come here with sleeves rolled up and pencils out to be finding new ways to lower the cost of government, rather than finding new ways to borrow money to spend.

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

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

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

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that there are a lot of provincial programs and that this new program will increase the cost of government and interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

However, it is ironic that this question would come from the Bloc Québécois, because the Bloc wants the government to increase the carbon tax, which is also an intrusion into—

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

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask the consent of the House to share my time with the eminently honourable member for Joliette.

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, through previous questioning it is clear that Bloc members support the principle of providing dental benefits to children under the age of 12. They are not objecting to that. It also appears to be clear that they are not against us making that a government expenditure. It seems to me that they should be voting in favour of the legislation, unless there is an alternative reason. The reason the member is putting forward is they need more time and then they will support the bill.

I wonder if the member can be clear as to why members of the Bloc do not support it. I suspect it is because they do not want Ottawa to play a role in this, which I believe would be to the detriment of kids throughout the country, as it should be available to all children.

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

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the children of Quebec, so we must try to be non-partisan when it comes to this issue.

We did not have enough time to contribute and reason with the government about the right way to respect Quebec's programs. Simply put, Quebec already has a program that provides this care. It could be more generous. The provision of care is enshrined in the Constitution as a provincial jurisdiction.

I think there should have been a discussion so that we could enhance the work being done for children. Today, we are demeaning all the efforts that have been made not only by Quebec, but also by Nova Scotia, to build this care. Under the pretext of taking action for dental care, the government is in fact taking action against dental care.

It is obvious that we cannot support this principle.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc colleague for really highlighting the hypocrisy coming out of the government when it comes to the different tools that it uses to limit debate in this House. We quite often hear when the Liberals limit debate at second reading that they will solve amendment challenges and get fixes done during committee work.

What is really concerning with this bill is they did not allow expert witnesses to testify at committee and provide their opinions so that we could develop the best bill possible and get the best legislation. I would like the member to expand on that a bit.

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

Madam Speaker, I could understand why the government might want to use a procedure like closure, although maybe not the super closure motion, if there were a filibuster at least.

The bill we are debating contains so many flaws. In a minority government, we could have worked with the opposition to improve it. This makes the closure motion doubly unacceptable. We are talking about 130,000 parents in Quebec who will not have access to the benefit. We are talking about 86,000 people who make less than $20,000 or less than $35,000 or so and who live in low-rent housing or in co-ops but who will not qualify.

Do these people deserve a closure motion? It is worth asking the question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc has claimed that our dental care program is discriminatory and unneeded in Quebec. This is demonstrably untrue. Every Quebec parent can apply for $1,300 per child to fix their teeth, just like every other Canadian parent. The provincial Quebec plan only covers children under 10, is poorly funded and has inadequate coverage. The Quebec representative of the Canadian Dental Association has confirmed the poor quality of the Quebec program, supports the federal plan and explicitly opposes sending the federal money directly to the Quebec government.

Why is the Bloc putting politics over public health and opposing a plan that will help some 100,000 Quebec children who do not have the same dental care that Bloc members have?

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

Madam Speaker, during the Quebec election campaign, groups that have been calling for expanded dental coverage for years held a press conference the same day that Bill C-31 was released, which clearly has not changed. They basically said that the bill was all nonsense.

Quebec parents will be ineligible for much of the care, not all, but a large amount of care, because Quebec has already taken some steps. Now we are told that Quebec should get some help to pay for those efforts. The ministers keep telling us that all parents will be eligible and so on. The problem is the word “eligible”. Their definition of “eligible” excludes 130,000 Quebec parents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is where we differ. Whether one is an 11-year-old child in Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, or any other jurisdiction in Canada, we believe that having that basic dental benefit for all children is a positive thing. There will be some variances. Some provinces, such as Alberta, have another program. Quebec has a program. Some provinces have no program. From a national perspective, we are trying to ensure that every child gets access to dental care.

It is disappointing that the Bloc is being narrow-minded and is not recognizing the true value of providing children in Canada a benefit that will make a difference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the principle behind my colleague's comments.

However, right now we are talking about technical aspects of the bill, which was drafted quickly. The principle is good, and the Bloc agrees with everything my colleague said. The problem is in the execution. The bill was drafted so quickly that we wanted to know how it could possibly line up with Quebec's program and those of the other provinces and take their reality into account. We were told that this was not up for discussion, that we could not invite witnesses, that no amendments would be accepted and that none would be proposed to deal with that. The government forgot to harmonize its program with the existing programs in Quebec and the other provinces. As a result, Quebec is getting half as much as it should be getting.

In Quebec, we choose to pay for dental insurance for children. We are prepared to pay for federal dental insurance for the part that is not covered, but all we are asking for is harmonization. What the government is doing with the NDP, which is doing nothing but complain, is saying that we have to pay without getting any compensation or harmonization in return. The whole process is flawed because the government imposed super closure, preventing the House and the committees from doing their job. It is because the government botched the process that we are now being forced to vote against the bill today.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the speech by my colleague from Joliette, whom I respect and who does an excellent job.

I agree with the member that the government is misrepresenting the Bloc Québécois when it accuses it of not valuing dental care. That is not what the member just said. After listening to his speech, it is clear that the Bloc is sensitive to this issue. That is not the problem.

I have a question for my colleague from Joliette. Is it because of the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada that we have this bill, which was thrown together without respecting provincial jurisdictions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his question and for his kind words. The feeling is mutual. I appreciate my hon. colleague's dedication and desire to do good and work hard and everything he does for democracy in the House.

We are not in the loop, of course, but we do know there was an agreement to create a dental benefit. The problem is, Ottawa does not have the expertise to provide services directly to the people, whereas the provinces do. What officials told us when the most recent budget came out was that they did not know how they were going to set this up, that it was bound to be long and complicated, and that it would not work.

I suspect that, when the government said that to the other opposition party in the context of the agreement, it was told that would not fly and it would have to find another way. The government cannot create a real insurance program, so it opted to send cheques. The NDP said to be quick about it or lose their support, so the government did it quickly and haphazardly without really taking the facts and the technicalities into account. We figured we could make changes in committee, but the government was not interested and swiftly shut things down with a super closure motion. If a bill is bad from the get-go and does not get amended, it is still a bad bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for months and months listening to the Bloc Québécois demand additional Canada health transfers from the federal government to the province, and it is right about that. I agree. We do need the federal government to pay more of its share for health care.

We have a bill before this House that would see the federal government send $1,300 to all Quebec parents who make under $70,000 a year and have children under the age of 12 and do not have dental coverage now. It would allow them to take their children to the dentist. There are no conditions whatsoever, and the Bloc opposes it.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can tell me why he is opposing the federal government sending out $1,300 for every child in Quebec who does not have dental care now, 100% of which would be paid by the federal government. What is he saying to those Quebec parents by opposing that payment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I said, we are in favour of the principle. There is a factual problem with his question. He is saying that the program is for every child in Quebec or for the parents of every child in Quebec. That is not true.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked into this, and he showed that Quebec will receive only half as much as the rest of Canada will be getting. Quebec is being discriminated against. All we are asking is to drop this super closure motion that the NDP supported so that we can improve this bill in committee. If we had been able to amend it and improve it in committee, we would be voting in favour of the bill now. However, the government imposed super closure on a bill that is out of touch with reality and does not provide fair compensation. If we had had a chance to do the work to ensure that we were not getting just half of what we are entitled to, then we would have voted in favour of the bill. There are consequences to supporting super closure.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to seek unanimous consent from the House to split my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Conservatives are loath to support this bill because they feel that all government spending is inflationary, even though economists have said that the amount of government spending in this bill would not cause inflationary pressure.

Does the member believe that providing dental care to children 12 and under would cause the price of dental care to go up?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, absurd to say that supporting Canadians who need dental services and who cannot access them because they cannot afford them would cause dental services to increase in cost. It is absurd to even say that.

I think the reason the Conservatives are opposed to the bill is that their wealthy friends in the oil and gas sector already have dental services. The Conservatives are loath to support people who do not have it and hate to contribute to them so they too can have the health care services we all deserve.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague's speech just now in the House and heard her speak earlier today. I think it was much the same speech, but we are at third reading now so I appreciate that we had to hear the speech twice.

I heard the member paraphrase what my colleagues and I, as I spoke to the bill today too, had to say about the bill, and it was a stretched paraphrase of what we put on the page about why we are opposed to the bill.

I am going to ask her one question. She talked about how everybody is screaming for this need, but there are 10 premiers across Canada, including her New Democratic premier in British Columbia, and none of them have asked the government for any support on dental care. There is a reason for that: It is in provincial jurisdiction and is meant to stay in provincial jurisdiction. However, the government, to appease the member's party, is putting something nice in the window so that its members can say, “That's why the NPD supports us.” It is, as I said earlier, a trinket.

Would the member ask her premier to please ask for this from the federal government before she stands up and says that it is something everybody is demanding?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not paraphrasing. The member for Cumberland—Colchester actually said on Monday at committee, “I think we've established very clearly that there's no dental crisis here”, as though the 500,000 children who do not have access to dental care are not faced with a crisis when they have dental pain and dental decay, miss school and end up in surgery, which costs more money that they cannot afford.

On the question of dental care and of health care overall, I have to say that it is a shared jurisdictional issue. That is what it is. The federal government has a responsibility for it, as do the provinces. We do not get to walk away and say that it is not about us, although that is what the Conservatives want to do. They want to close their eyes as though somehow dental services have nothing to do with the federal government. It is simply not true.

My constituents have said to me that they desperately need this service. They need it for their children, and seniors need it as well, as seniors have told me. I have met seniors who could not afford dental services and who have to blend their food into a drink because they do not have teeth to eat it. The member can tell my constituents that they do not need this plan.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague defend the poor. If she thinks that she is the only one from a poor background, I will tell her right away that artists are used to living on $20,000 or less a year. I know what I am talking about. We have many artists in Quebec.

We obviously listened carefully to her speech. The same cannot be said of my colleagues when my colleague from Joliette was speaking. At any rate, the best way to understand a situation that seems inequitable is to imagine oneself in the other person's situation. If my colleague put herself in the place of Quebeckers, who are being denied part of what they are entitled to, I think she would probably react just as strongly as she just did.

What does she think of Quebec's situation? How does she see it, knowing that there is a member from Quebec in her party?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I know is that under this program, about 100,000 children in Quebec would actually benefit. What I know on the housing benefit is that over 500,000 Quebeckers would actually benefit.

From my perspective, it is not about me; it is about the people and their needs. This is what we are trying to address with the bill. We are trying to help as many people as possible across the country.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my neighbour from Vancouver Kingsway for his long-time advocacy on this important issue.

We listen in this House to the Conservatives talk about having the best interests of Canadians at heart, but how do they align that with the hypocrisy of saying they are going to deny kids the right to dental care? I would love to get the member's sense of how that is possible or what it is that must be motivating folks to say they are going to deny children the very right and privilege to dental care that all of us in this House have for ourselves and our families.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember the words of J.S. Woodsworth, who said, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.” I think that this is an excellent guiding principle as a matter of good citizenship and good governance.

If I flip that around, I think of the utter hypocrisy of people in the House voting against providing dental care to Canada's poorest citizens, while they themselves get their teeth fixed, their spouses' teeth fixed and their children's teeth fixed, not paid for by them but paid for by the taxpayers. The leader of the official opposition has been in the House since he was 25 years old. He has been having his teeth fixed, paid for by the taxpayers, since he was 25, and he is going to stand in the House and say that people who make under $70,000 should not have dental insurance.

Seniors over 65, do we know how many seniors over 65 make under $70,000 a year and have no dental insurance? Almost all of them. That is who the NDP is going to bring dental care to. I want to know what Conservatives will say to them next election.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my friend's speech on this side of the House. I do have some questions for him on the applicability of an actual dental care system. This is a dental payout system. Dental care systems exist in all 10 provinces right now, including in my province of Alberta, where we did some extensive research. All poor people below a certain threshold are covered 100% for dental expenses in Alberta. I think there is much the same system in many of the provinces across Canada. Some are more; some are less. This is an overlap system just to give money to people.

I would ask my colleague if he would consider a better system, as opposed to an overlapping system that is going to be highly bureaucratic and inefficient. Would he actually look, perhaps, at just giving some extra funding to the provincial systems that are not meeting what we sees as the requirements people are missing out on in dental care in Canada at this point?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the benefit of sitting in on a round table meeting that had not only the Canadian Dental Association but representatives from every province and territory of the country, including Alberta.

This is what they told me about Alberta. They said that Alberta has an existing low-income and seniors program but, like Ontario, the coverage is poor. Dentists do not accept most patients or they ration patients. They said there are 750,000 visits to hospitals every year in Alberta for people who are accessing dental care. They said they need $4 billion to treat all untreated cavities in the province of Alberta. That does not sound like there is a very good program in Alberta to me.

One of the myths is about the 10 provinces and territories that do have programs. I have met with all of them. None of them have a good program. There are gaps in coverage. There are high copays. What they really do is that they dump the cost onto dental professionals and they pay substandard rates to dentists, denturists and dental hygienists so that they are actually subsidizing the poor coverage that is already there. The plan that we are talking about is a normative plan for all Canadians that is as good as my hon. colleague's plan is.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a shame that so much chatter was going on in the corner while my colleagues from Mirabel and Joliette were giving their brilliant speeches. Members will still go ahead and ask my two colleagues questions on issues that were covered in great detail in their speeches. Then members will ask how my colleagues can say this or that. My first point is that members should have been listening rather than talking.

My question is this: why the super closure motion?

If the Liberals are so sure of their arguments, in other words, that they are not encroaching on any jurisdictions, that Quebec's jurisdictions are not being trampled, that a right of withdrawal with compensation is therefore unnecessary, that everything is hunky-dory and Ottawa knows best, if that were the case, we could have gone through the committee process. We could have done real committee work and done a real study with the experts, including all those who say that the plan falls short. If they are experts in their fields, the committee could have scrutinized their arguments.

Why are the Liberals so afraid of democracy? Why come and shove this super closure motion down our throats?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is worried about rushing the bill through Parliament. Dental care has been recommended to be part of our Canada health care system since 1964. I think that Canadians have waited long enough.

Second of all, I was at the health committee the other night when we had every opportunity to put in amendments and, in fact, the Bloc Québécois did put two amendments into the legislation. One of them was to have every province opt out, which, of course, defeats the entire purpose of the program.

Let me read what the Quebec member of the Canadian Dental Association told us. Quebec has a very basic program for kids under 10. There are a lot of procedures not covered. It is poorly funded. Dentists are subsidizing that program. They do not want the transfer to go to the province and they prefer the federal program.

Why does the hon. member want children in Quebec whose families make under $70,000 not to get $1,300, starting in a month or two, so that they can go to the dentist for dental exams, for cleanings, for X-rays and to get their teeth filled? Why would he stand in the way of that for Quebec families? I wonder what he says to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, folks who are watching this debate are seeing political theatrics at its best. We just heard from the member for Vancouver East and the member for Vancouver Kingsway. The member for Vancouver East has been in office for 29 years, and the member for Vancouver Kingsway since 2008, and prior to that he worked for a union, so they both have had dental care.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway brought up a good point that, at the health committee, members from the opposition did bring amendments through. Our hon. colleague from the Bloc brought some great amendments through. He is the member for Mirabel. We then saw the costly coalition gang up and deny these amendments, just like they do all the other times.

As a matter fact, they were ruled out of order, yet the NDP amendments were ruled in order. This did not take place until the next day, but the Speaker of the House actually had to rule those amendments out of order, yet we still see the political theatrics of this group. It really is shameful.

Let me begin by saying there is not one member in His Majesty's official opposition who does not believe Canadian families need more help. There is not one person in my party who does not want to see Canadians' lives get easier and more affordable. There is not one member of our party who does not want to see life made easier for kids and parents. No one on this side believes kids should not have access to dental care.

We have heard all kinds of accusations from the Liberal-NDP coalition today on this, and it is absolute hogwash. I would use stronger language, because them speaking kind of gets me—

[An hon. member]

It triggers you.

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

Mr. Speaker, “triggers” is a good word.

[An hon. member]

No one is triggered but you.

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

Mr. Speaker, they trigger it, but that is what they want. That is exactly what they want—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. Let us try to take the temperature down a little bit. I do not have a big list of speakers, and I want to make sure the ones who are left have the opportunity to present, just like everyone else had the opportunity during this debate.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my colleague. I said in my intervention that Canadians need a leg up, that single parents and families that are living dollar to dollar and are having a hard time making ends meet need a leg up. They need a plan. They get this top-up, but then what? How do they live for the rest of the year?

In my intervention, I said that a plan needs to be in place. While this money may make things better at the moment, there is not a long-term plan in place that can truly make a difference. That is something we have been struggling to get the government to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes there is a lot of invective thrown around in the House.

Earlier, those on the NDP side of the House said we were playing politics with families. The experience I had at the Standing Committee on Health was that the Bloc Québécois wanted to hear witnesses and work for Quebeckers. The Bloc wanted the bill to include people who had been left behind by the NDP. We were prevented from doing our job.

I would like the member who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Health to confirm whether it was us, the real opposition parties, who obstructed the bill or whether it was the Liberals with the NDP who prevented us from being inclusive and doing our work properly. Who has hindered the parliamentary business of the House, them or us?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have taken part in a lot of committees. As our colleague can attest to, I absolutely lost my mind the night that this was taking place and that what we were witnessing was taking place. It was so unparliamentary.

Clearly, as I stated in my speech, the deal was done, and anybody who brought forward any type of amendment, who was not part of the NDP-Liberal coalition, was going to get shut out. We offered to bring more witnesses to the table. We asked for more time to study the bill. We asked to do our job. We offered to sit through the weekend to study this bill and bring witnesses, but we were shut down every step of the way.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made Tuesday, October 18, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried, or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #205

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

It being 7:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 18, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:18 p.m.)