Debates of Oct. 17th, 2022

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

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right in pointing to the 500,000 children who we estimate do not have appropriate dental care, in addition to those that do not have appropriate child care for their families. In the member's riding, probably around 1,000 to 2,000 children and their families would benefit from this dental care program, if it is passed by Parliament. That is obviously a lot of children who would live a healthier life because of those investments.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's presence today. I am disappointed the government is moving forward with such a large expansion without necessarily having debate.

Every province, with the exception of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, has a program to help seniors, as well as low-income children, to get dental care. In my own home province, John Horgan, the premier, has said on behalf of the Council of the Federation that this is not where they would want to see health dollars spent.

How does the minister square outright expanding areas of government that are not the priority while our health care system, the system the minister is supposed to support and putting money into, is not a priority? These are things that even the premiers say are not a priority. How does he square that? How does he feel about his role working contrary to every single province?

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

Madam Speaker, there are two key statistics: 4% and $2 billion. The approximate share of current expenditures by provinces and territories on dental care is 4%. That is obviously not enough to cover the needs of almost 35% of the population in Canada that does not have access to dental insurance. Second, $2 billion is the estimated cost hospitals have to incur when people are forced to go to the emergency department because they do not have access to preventative dental care.

These costs are obviously very large and would be significantly reduced by investing in dental care for low- and medium-income families.

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

Madam Speaker, last weekend I was in my riding, in the Saint-Janvier area of Mirabel, and I was forced to tell citizens, who are already eligible to the Quebec rent supplement program and who are poor, that the Quebec Liberals had forgotten them. These people are among the 86,400 Quebeckers who will not qualify for federal assistance because the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing have forgotten them.

Did the Minister of Health go to his riding of Québec to explain to households earning less than $35,000 a year that they will not be eligible and that they will be left high and dry while Quebec taxes pay benefits to other Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, the member certainly did a very good job. I am sure, then, that he is familiar with the Canada housing benefit, which has been paid to 100,000 households in Quebec for some time now. This figure represents about one-third of the households covered by the Canada housing benefit across the country.

My colleague is surely aware of the considerable investments that are being made to help the Government of Quebec and all of the housing partners, whether it be low-cost housing, non-profits or housing co-ops, and to secure community housing, which, as he rightly said, is essential to ensure the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of low-income renters in Canada and Quebec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the important thing here is that the government needs to begin to understand the significant effects of inflation and increasing interest rates on Canadians and the difficulties that everyday Canadians, not just in Cumberland—Colchester but across this vast nation, are struggling with when trying to feed their families. We know for a family of four it is costing them $1,200 more to feed their family. We realize that.

What I would suggest is that the government needs to do something better. It needs to change its fiscal policies, because we know that is what is putting the gasoline on the inflationary fire. It continues to do it only to, sadly, support its coalition with the NDP, which continues to prop the government up.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. I quite agree with many of the points he made, including the fact that we should focus on improving existing programs rather than creating more. We just so happen to agree on that.

In his speech, he said that, rather than creating new problems, we should look to provincial health transfers as the solution. Did I understand my colleague correctly? Does he agree that the government should increase health care transfers to the provinces with no strings attached, as the provinces and Quebec have been calling for?

Ever since his party got a new leader, that has been very unclear. I would be really pleased to hear him say that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question.

I know very clearly that the Canada health transfers have been a difficulty for all provinces. We see the burgeoning costs of health care, and we know that this is a significant issue. Part of the argument I would make is to ask this. Why are we spending money on more and new programs that are exceedingly expensive, as I said, on the order of $10 billion, when we are continuing to underfund the Canada health transfers at the current time?

It is that old question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why are we doing this? Why are we taking money that we do not have and trying to pull it out of this pocket and do a little hocus-pocus to say that we have found some more money?

We are continuing to print money. We know it is adding, as I said previously, fuel to the inflationary fire. We know Canadians find it very important to have a robust and accessible health system, which at the current time they do not have. That is the travesty of the Liberal government.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for pointing out that this, in fact, is due to the NDP bringing it forward. That is kind of him. I did notice, however, that he spent a lot of his speech talking about things other than dental care. I wonder if that was because of his worries about going back to his constituents and explaining to them why he does not support dental care for children under 12.

My colleague talked about the $10-billion price tag. I wonder how he feels about what we just heard: the fact that there are tax evaders in this country who are evading 30 billion dollars' worth of tax. If we actually took care of that, we could take care of the teeth of children in this country. I wonder if he could comment on that, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the important thing we need to understand here, of course, is that the government has so many flaws that it is really beyond fixing. We know that it is not catching tax cheats. We see that. It is not doing those things. It is not funding mental health care. It is not funding health care. However, it wants to fund another program. That seems to be nonsensical.

I will reiterate this to my colleague. I know I said this previously, but I think it bears repeating. This is not a question of the importance of oral health. That is not what this is about. It is a question of responsible government, fiscal responsibility, partnerships with the provinces, insane federal oversight and a failed federal administration. That is what this is about.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, part of the difficulty that Canadians are facing is inflation. We know that interest rates are rising. Some other economic experts think there may even be a recession looming on the horizon. That is absolutely terrifying from an economic perspective.

We understand that generations going forward will not be able to afford homes. That is a travesty. That is not the vision that we have for Canada. We understand that the current generation of adult children are living in their parents' basements because they are unable to afford a decent house. That is a travesty. On the weekend, I met with a great friend of mine of many years. Two of his adult children are living in his basement because they are unable to afford a house. Is that a problem? That is a giant problem that I lay directly at the feet of the Liberal government because, clearly, there is no thought about monetary policy on that side of the House.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for highlighting that wonderful program the Province of Ontario has. I would also like to pass on my condolences for the fallen officers in his riding.

We know very clearly that many provinces and territories have reasonably robust oral health programs at the current time. As I mentioned, I think it is important that we understand that what exists now could be built upon. It is mentioned in the comments by the Canadian Dental Association to look at programs that are underfunded or going in a direction that could be improved upon and to understand that we do not need to tear down those institutions that already exist. We need to make them better, and I do not believe for one second that there is anybody on that side of the House who could possibly run a program that would be effective, delivered quickly and useful for all Canadians.

I think what that member highlighted is very important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to satisfy our NDP friends, who are yelling—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member is upset, but he keeps pointing at me personally and I find that it is threatening my space. Could you ask him to settle down a little?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to manage my time and I have every right to point to the clock under the Standing Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to ensure that everything goes well in the House, and I would like to remind the hon. member not to point at other members. I would ask him to please be careful.

The hon. member for Mirabel has four and a half minutes left for his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, if it was my words that were criticized, I could withdraw them, but it is a bit more difficult with my finger.

We are in a situation where a family has to go to the CRA, fill in paperwork and be audited. To qualify for this enhanced benefit, they will have to go to the dentist to seek services not covered by current programs and get through a bunch of red tape. Instead of helping their children do their homework, instead of spending time with their children, they will spend their time being audited to qualify for an amount that is not related to dental costs.

It is even worse, because we are waiting for some figures from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We know that Quebec will have to pay for this. Quebec has a generous program that can be improved. This can be negotiated with the Quebec government. Quebec has a dental care program that covers children 10 years of age and under. It can be improved. The system already exists. The computer system already exists. Dentists know it, parents know it. For example, after paying for a child's filling, people are automatically reimbursed.

Because we get results, because we look after our own, because we have a system, because we stand together, because Quebeckers are united, they will pay. Parents in Quebec will not have access to as many benefits as parents in the rest of Canada. That is what is going to happen. In Ottawa, Quebec is paying the price for its solidarity. In Ottawa, Quebec is paying the price for looking after its own people.

The intentions may have been good, but who will be paying? It is the children of Quebec, the renters of Quebec and the single people of Quebec who will pay. I am not making it up when I say that nearly 87,000 Quebeckers will not qualify for the benefit. Between 80% and 90% of people do not qualify.

Let us return to the gag order, because it is of fundamental importance. These people from the NDP and the Liberal Party think they are so smart, so good, but they have tunnel vision. They have forgotten Quebec, they have forgotten Ontario, they have forgotten the New Brunswick dental care program. They have forgotten everyone except themselves.

They think they are so great that there is no need for debate. They think that because we have chosen not to get into bed with the government and have instead decided to support bills that are good for Quebec, to vote at second reading, to debate in committee, to examine bills clause by clause, and to do their job, the job they are elected and paid to do, we are not smart enough. They think we are not capable of reading a bill, improving it, looking after our constituents.

What are the NDP members doing? They are playing the government's game and supporting a gag order. Shame on those who go into politics, who get elected in opposition, in the party with the least number of seats in the House, and who claim they have the individual right to quash debate in this democratic chamber. Shame on them.

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

Madam Speaker, what is clear, unfortunately, is that the Bloc, a separatist party that does not have any form of a national vision recognized, is working with the Conservative Party of Canada and does not support this legislation.

That is the reason the motion is necessary. If the motion were not brought in, children in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, would not get the benefits of a truly national program that would prevent, in many ways, children from having to go to hospitals. How could members of the opposition, namely the Conservative and Bloc members, disregard the needs of children under the age of 12? Shame on them.

Why does the member not recognize that if not for the NDP, we would not be able to get this legislation through the House? Maybe he is being somewhat hypocritical in his assessment.

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

Madam Speaker, what a shameful statement from a man who knows that we are going to support the bill at second reading. We believe in the parliamentary process. We believe in debate. We believe that the bill should be studied clause by clause.

What an shameful statement from a man who is cutting debate short, who is leaving almost 87,000 low-income Quebeckers without a housing allowance, and who is excluding Quebec from children's dental care benefits because Quebec already has a generous support system. Shame on him.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I share with the member the frustration over how the government seems to think this place is a complete afterthought and how debate is not needed. As we have seen over and over again, when the government brings things forward, we have concerns about them. We have said they are not going to work and are not going to do what it intends them to do. We have ideas for improvement, and the government has not been willing to listen to us.

Can my hon. colleague outline examples of other bills we have seen come to this place that the Liberals have rammed through, only to have disastrous results as we predicted?