Evidence of meeting #38 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.
Today we meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a quick question in respect to this.
It's very loud right now. Hopefully, our colleagues and those in the gallery can hear this.
We only just heard some of the testimony on the fee guide. I, for one, have some concerns, as I stated to the officials, regarding the fee guide and how we ensure that dental care remains affordable and that the benefit actually will be applied to....
I guess the question I'm asking is this. If we had an amendment towards the fee guide, is there a mechanism in place for us right now, tonight, where we could have somebody help us draft an amendment?
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Yes. They're here. Philippe Méla and Marie-Hélène Sauvé are legislative clerks who are here to help us. It is permissible to bring forward an amendment for which there has not been given notice, but once we get to 12 o'clock, we will be going straight to a vote on those, and only those, for which notice has been given.
If there is an amendment proposed for which there was no notice given, which is what you're contemplating, you are welcome to do that. It will have to be done in writing, in both official languages, and it will have to be dispensed with before midnight or it effectively falls off the table.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I've been a member of Parliament for seven years now. This is the first time I've ever seen a bill or a piece of legislation where the amendments had to be in before we even saw the witnesses. We saw two ministers on this. We studied this bill for literally two hours, on something that is $10 billion.
While I appreciate that there are a lot of moving pieces to this, the ministers weren't really able to answer some of the questions. Minister Hussen said that if the Conservatives would just get out of the way, essentially.... Well, we're doing our job. The amount of $10 billion is projected to be spent. We want to ensure that (a) it's getting to the people who require it, and (b) there are measures in place so that all of a sudden the industry doesn't increase their fee guide and make it unobtainable again. I guess there are just questions and concerns.
You're saying now that if we do draft an amendment, it won't be able to be voted on anyway.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
It will be able to be voted on provided that vote happens before midnight.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
7:05 p.m.
Marie-Hélène Sauvé Legislative Clerk
I just want to put in a clarification. We can advise here, as legislative clerks, on the admissibility of an amendment that is brought forward from the floor and that's not currently included in the package. However, we cannot assist with drafting it. That would be the work of the legislative counsel.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Okay. So there is no mechanism in place to have it done tonight before midnight. It would have to be translated. Essentially, what we have is what you get. That's what you're saying.
All right.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.
I would now like to welcome the officials who are with us this evening. We are well supported with plenty of expertise around the table.
We have, from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ms. Nadine Leblanc, senior vice-president, policy; Ms. Patricia Roset-Zuppa, vice-president, policy development; and Ms. Louise Michel, director, legal services. From the assessment, benefit and service branch of the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Ms. Gillian Pranke, assistant commissioner; and Ms. Heather Daniels, director general, benefit programs directorate. From Health Canada, we have Ms. Lynne Tomson, associate assistant deputy minister, strategic policy branch.
As you just heard, we also have with us the legislative clerks, Marie-Hélène Sauvé and Philippe Méla.
The good folks at the back of the room should be able to handle any technical questions you have with respect to the substance of the bill or the amendments. The good folks at the front of the room will be able to handle your legal and technical questions on that end.
There will be no opening statements. Everyone you see here is here as a resource to help us do our work.
We're now going to move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-31, but I have a bit of a script here for you.
As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and until midnight tonight, each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package each member received from the clerk.
Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.
The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.
During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title, the title, and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.
Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.
We're now proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. I therefore call clause 2.
(On clause 2)
I understand there is an amendment proposed to clause 2.
Monsieur Garon, do you wish to introduce the amendment?
7:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing an amendment to the suggested preamble. The change would be applied to line 18 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 of the bill, where it states, “while working towards the development of a long term national dental care program”.
As you know, this is considered by Quebec and a number of provinces to be interference in their jurisdictions. We understand that this is a matter of—
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I thought we moved past the short title and on to clause 2, which would be the Bloc amendment to clause 2. Is that correct? That's what I'm asking.
I guess I'm asking my colleague.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the short title.
7:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Of course, we are talking about a program that is justified in large part by the federal spending power. This again confirms to us that Ottawa has an enormous amount of revenue, while the responsibilities fall to the provinces.
This is particularly true in the case of dental care. Quebec already has a program that covers this care for children aged 10 and under. As I mentioned earlier, this program used to cover many more people, but it had to be scaled back owing to a lack of funding, especially from the federal government. The context is important: the federal government is partly responsible for the fact that this universal program is not as generous as it once was.
As far as this bill is concerned, it is within the federal spending authority. We will discuss the rest in detail. That said, the development of a national dental care program, not a program to support families for dental care, is obviously an interference with Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. It is also likely to be detrimental to the relationship between Quebec and the federal government and, therefore, to the development of programs that will, in the longer term, make dental care for children sustainable.
This first amendment by the Bloc Québécois is to the proposed preamble of the new Dental Benefit Act, and it does not change the substance of the bill in any way. In fact, the part of the sentence that the Bloc Québécois seeks to remove by its amendment should never have been there. Removing this part of the sentence from the proposed preamble, which is found in line 18 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 of the bill, better describes the nature of the bill. Let me say, these three lines are merely a political stunt for future purposes: they presuppose future government actions that are not part of the bill.
Therefore, not only would the removal of these three lines be appropriate in the context of Bill C‑31, but it would be respectful of Quebec. I say it and I repeat it to my colleagues, this will in no way prevent the federal government, starting in the next few weeks, from sitting down with the governments of Quebec and the provinces to think about dental care programs or their improvement, as well as opt-out rights with full financial compensation for children's dental care.
These three lines have no place in the bill. They are essentially political manoeuvring that has no legal or descriptive value in context. Therefore, I propose that we remove them.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We need a national dental plan that covers everyone. This bill is the first step. The proposed amendment would remove key context from the preamble.
I just want to say that when I earlier asked a question of the minister, the answer was that work on the long-term national dental care program is ongoing. We need a national dental plan that covers everyone. This bill addresses that.
I am opposed to this amendment, Mr. Chair.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
October 24th, 2022 / 7:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a couple of practical reasons to respectfully oppose this amendment, as well as some broader constitutional ones.
On a practical level, what I think a preamble, and legislation, should do is describe in very plain and very accurate language to the people who elect us exactly what the laws that they are expected to comply with say. I know that my Conservative colleagues, Mr. Poilievre, made it a strong feature of his recent leadership campaign to speak in plain language. In terms of an accurate description, the reason these words not only should be in the bill, but must be in the bill, is that they describe accurately to Canadians exactly what this legislation is doing.
I think anybody on the health committee who has been following social media will see that there's an immense amount of confusion about what this bill does. I've seen people on Twitter and on Facebook saying this bill is not a dental care plan. They attack this legislation on the basis that it was politically pledged to Canadians that we would provide them a dental care plan, and this legislation is not that.
They're right. This legislation is not a dental care plan, because it's not designed to be a dental care plan. This legislation is designed to be an interim bridge benefit to pay money to parents of children under 12, while we work on the permanent national dental care plan. That's exactly what this is.
Were we to take these words out, Mr. Chair, we would be doing a disservice to Canadians by not describing to them exactly what this is. If we just said that we recognize the need to provide interim dental benefits for children under 12 years and stop there, without telling them that we're working toward the development of a long-term national dental care program, it would be inaccurate, because we are working toward a national dental care plan.
I respect the position of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on the constitutionality and the considerations that go into working with the provinces. We can certainly have that discussion on a different day, but that's not a discussion for this legislation tonight, because this legislation simply sets out what is going on, which is dealing with legislation that would establish the interim bridge payment. Again, we're telling Canadians that there's further work to be done.
When that further work is tabled, it's at that point that I fully expect Mr. Garon and others to raise issues over the permanent dental care plan and whether things are constitutional.
While I'm on that subject, though, I must say that I've made it my mission in life, any time anybody questions the constitutionality of the federal government's role in health care, to have a robust defence. My friend brought up the spending power. Constitutionally, the term “spending power” has come to mean the power of the federal government to make payments to people, institutions or governments for purposes on which it does not necessarily have the power to legislate.
The constitutional validity of federal spending in the area of health was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1991 decision in Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the establishment of the Canada assistance plan was valid action, and stated that federal spending power is wider than the field of federal legislative competence.
Constitutional expert Peter Hogg said this, which I think describes the state of law in the most pithy way:
the federal Parliament may spend or lend its funds to any government or institution or individual it chooses, for any purpose it chooses; and that it may attach to any grant or loan any conditions it chooses, including conditions it could not directly legislate. There is a distinction in my view, between compulsory regulation, which can obviously be accomplished only by legislation enacted within the limits of legislative power, and spending or lending or contracting, which either imposes no obligations on the recipient...or obligations which are voluntarily assumed by the recipient....
In other words, if the federal government is using its spending power to give money to an individual and imposing no obligations or conditions whatsoever on the recipient, the federal government is free to do so. It's only when it attempts to impose obligations or conditions on a province, a territory or an individual that it has to act within its legislative ambit.
Recent federal benefit payments to individuals using this power are the universal child care benefit, the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit and the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB. You may know of and be interested in, perhaps, Monsieur Garon's view on this. When the federal government recently used its spending power on CERB, it was very similar—I would argue identical, in fact—to what's happening in this bill.
The federal government sees a crushing need, and they respond by developing a federal program. They say to Canadians, “You can apply directly to the federal government for money.” The federal government spends that money, and I didn't hear any opt-out argument from Quebec or anybody else. There was no question of constitutional jurisdiction there. There was not a peep. Why? It's because that's as it should be. That's the federal government doing what it should do.
I'm going to conclude by saying that dental care is primary health care. It's not a luxury. It's not an option. It's not secondary to health care.
Mrs. Goodridge gave this committee some very powerful words when she described the pain her child was in when the child was teething and they couldn't get access to Tylenol for children. Imagine that right now, as we speak, there are parents in this country with children who are five, seven, nine or 11 who are crying because they have dental pain and they can't afford to go to the dentist.
This legislation would, in a very quick way, get money out the door, with $1,300 per child in the next 12 months. If necessary, we can talk about what that would buy, but we know that it would buy a checkup at the dentist. It would buy an exam. It would buy a set of X-rays. It would buy a cleaning and multiple fillings. That's what $1,300 buys. We can have that money out the door as early as December.
In terms of working towards a national plan, this legislation simply describes to Canadians the intentions and the actions of this Parliament, and I'll conclude with this. By removing these words, we would actually be confusing and misleading Canadians, as opposed to telling them what this government is doing.
What we're doing is probably the single biggest expansion of public health care in this country in half a century, and I'm proud of that.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Davies, for that in-depth conversation on your assessment of the division of powers and how that comes down, but it's not necessarily pertinent to this particular piece. A long time ago, when I asked my dad how he voted, he told me that he always voted for the politician with the shortest speech, so I've always tried to keep that in mind.
My question on this particular amendment is quite simple. It's not the same in English versus French. Why?
7:20 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Sure.
It's simply a feature of how the French and the English in the bill itself don't necessarily line up, but what it does, in effect, when reading the French and the English, is that it amounts to the same result.