Debates of Oct. 17th, 2022

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

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

Madam Speaker, this may sound ingenous, but I believe in debate. I think we can have debates. I think a bill can be amended. I think people who are overlooked can be brought back into the fold. I think that in a federal system, contrary to what the member for Winnipeg North tells us, solidarity also means recognizing those who have already made an effort, rewarding them for it and welcoming their expertise.

He says that we have no vision. For me, Quebec is my nation. I feel no animosity toward Canada. Quebec has already done its job, is already one step ahead, so I think that instead of yelling at it and insulting it, Canada should take inspiration from it. Unfortunately, there is a glass bubble around Ottawa, and I think people like the member for Winnipeg North have spent a little too much time in it.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first phase of our plan to provide dental insurance to all Canadians.

Why is the member not on board with the idea of providing universal dental insurance coverage to all Canadians, including Quebeckers?

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

Madam Speaker, the member just proved that British Columbia is quite far from Quebec.

We know that Quebec instituted a dental insurance program back in the 1970s. We are leaders on this. Today, that program covers children 10 and under and people on social assistance. It can be improved. The program used to cover people 18 and under.

Do my colleagues know why we had to scale back this program? It is because of the budget cuts to health transfers, including by the Liberals in the 1990s.

Before hurling blame and telling us we are against dental insurance, my colleagues should sit down, do their homework and look at history. Perhaps then they would be less inclined to support a government that is responsible for undermining the very program they claim to want to bring in.

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

Madam Speaker, since the member for Mirabel seems to be in fine form today, I would like him to share his thoughts on independence. The topic was raised earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. The door is open.

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

Madam Speaker, in an independent Quebec, we would have Quebec MPs looking after Quebec. We would not have a member for Kingston and a member for Winnipeg North speaking for the other 160 members. Maybe then we would have a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing who stands up for Quebeckers, because, at present, there is no one doing that. Maybe then we would have a Parliament full of people defending Quebec's interests. That is what we would have.

It is not about being better or worse. We know that we have the economic capacity to do it. We know that we can do it. It is about solidarity. The tone of debates, the attacks by the member for Winnipeg North alone say a lot. It speaks volumes that members from British Columbia barely know where Quebec is on the map and know so little about our programs that they want to create new programs that duplicate ours, without doing their homework. It shows us that not only do we need to gain independence, but that it is urgent because they do not care about us. We are not important to them.

The NDP does not care about people making less than $35,000 who need help with housing in Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear my colleague from Mirabel say that no one is standing up for Quebeckers' interests in the House. In my riding and in Quebec, we have received subsidies for social housing that exceed the proportion we represent in Canada. I am very happy with the projects that have been completed in my riding and in other ridings.

The member for Mirabel surely knows of one or two social housing projects that have been completed in Quebec, given that there are some.

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

Madam Speaker, did the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle take action at the time? She was here in Parliament, yet it took four years to negotiate the national housing strategy because Ottawa implemented it and then realized that Quebec City already had such a program with certain criteria.

Is the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle aware that, through the green municipal fund administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we receive about 10% of the funds when we should be receiving 20%? Has she talked to her mayors about that? Will the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle go see the people in her riding who are among the 87,000 or so people who will not be entitled to assistance? Meanwhile, we are paying for Ontario and Alberta because their provincial governments are not doing their job. Did she do her job? If she did, I congratulate her, but I doubt it.

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

Madam Speaker, once again I want to mention to the hon. member that similar to Quebec, Alberta has a dental care program for children across the province. Again, as we have been pointing out, this is true across the country.

One thing I would note, as I disagree with the member's assessment of the way things are, is that Alberta pays an exorbitant amount into the equalization program. Quebec is generally a net receiver of that program, and I wonder if the member would recognize the fact that Alberta is often paying the bills for Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the provincial governments that are doing their job and those that are not. That is what federalism is all about. The provinces are given powers and told to handle housing and all the social programs. That means different provinces can make different choices.

Obviously, Quebec has made certain choices, and now it is being penalized for its success in this area. My colleague talked about equalization, and this is kind of the same thing. Alberta's performance on the environment and economic diversification is poor, and it is paying for it. That is the nature of federalism.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting question, and the member did not necessarily answer it. There are provinces, like the province of Manitoba, that have been big beneficiaries through equalization. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of equalization payments. I know they are really important to the province of Manitoba.

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

Madam Speaker, let us look at the books for the prepandemic year for all levels of government and compare them to the health of Quebec's economy, which is highly diversified.

In 2019, if Quebec had been its own country, which does not eliminate duplication, its deficit would have been around 1.5% of its GDP. That is better than the United States, France and this government, which is not even capable of managing public spending.

If equalization bothers the Liberals that much, maybe they should just kick us out.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise in the House and speak for the people of Timmins—James Bay. It is very powerful that we are having this discussion today on trying to move forward with dental care legislation and protection for Canadians who are low-income renters, in the midst of constant obstruction from both the Conservatives and the Bloc.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Today, as we are discussing dental care, let us put it in context for people back home. We will be voting this afternoon on the New Democrat motion to take on “greedflation”, to actually shine a spotlight onto the massive level of profits that are being made as ordinary working-class Canadians and senior citizens cannot pay their grocery bills.

This morning, Galen Weston suddenly had his moment on the road to Damascus and announced that although he was not completely willing to stop the price gouging, he was going to put a price freeze on all of his No Frills products. Nice, Galen. It is nice to know that when the New Democrats start putting pressure on, the big grocery giants are starting to jump.

We are not done with it. We see that inflation has been hitting in two key areas. One is obviously at the grocery stores, and the other is at the pump. Those are the two sectors that have had unprecedented levels of profits over the last year. It is inexcusable for giants like Galen Weston and big oil to claim that they are just responding to the crisis that has been caused by the Ukrainian war and inflation, when what we are actually seeing is “greedflation”. Whenever the price at the pump has been dropping, we have been seeing that inflationary pressures have dropped.

Internationally, we see efforts in the EU, California and the United Nations, pushing for a windfall tax, to say that this upper level of profit, this unprecedented level of profit, is coming out of the pocketbooks of people who cannot afford to pay it and should be paid back. That is something that is happening at the international level. We have not seen the government go anywhere near that, but it would be interesting today to see whether the Conservatives and the Liberals will stand with us and actually take on “greedflation”.

I mention that because it is really important to frame how the New Democrats have come into this Parliament and how we have been proceeding.

When the Prime Minister called that completely unnecessary election last summer, in the summer of 2021, we went door to door and we listened to people, and we met family after family whose concerns were that their children could not get dental care. We met seniors who could not afford to get proper work done on their teeth.

We made a promise that if the Canadian people set up the cards in Parliament such that we had a minority Parliament, we would come back in and fight for a national dental care program. We ran on that, and we are delivering on that. We are very focused on that. I think it is very telling, because what obviously has my Conservative friends' backs up about this is that we are actually delivering.

We said that we were going to push for a doubling of the GST tax credit, because we need to get some money back into the pockets of citizens. We saw the Conservatives light their hair on fire, and then they flip-flopped, because how would they go home to their constituents and not say that they believed they should be entitled to having money come back?

What they have been doing is that they have a very different strategy from us. We are very focused on what we are doing. We announce what we are doing. We work on it. It is like siege warfare, I have to say, with the Liberals, dragging them kicking and screaming sometimes to do the right thing, but one can do that in a minority Parliament if one is focused.

We said we would get the dental care provisions in place, that we would double the GST tax credit and that we would get support for low-income renters, because they are unable to pay the bills at this increasing time of insecurity.

The Conservatives, for their part, God love them, love to jump down rabbit holes of conspiracy, to get people arguing about things that are completely inconsequential.

Obviously, we could not have this conversation without the new shadow critic for infrastructure. At a time when the issue of infrastructure and housing is the number one issue in the land, she is demanding an investigation into Pfizer, because she saw some crazy right-wing politician on YouTube making allegations. That is what the Conservative leader's new infrastructure critic is saying.

I remember when she was going on about the so-called Nuremberg Code and it took the very wise member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, whom I have a lot of respect for, to have to publicly say, “Being offered a vaccine that prevents serious illness and our governments' responses to COVID-19 are not the same as being tortured in a Nazi concentration camp.” He had to say that against a member of his own party.

I mention that because the politics of disinformation are about getting people upset so that they are not focused on what matters, and what matters right now are concrete solutions to addressing the growing financial gaps and insecurities.

If we want to talk disinformation, the front face of the Conservative movement in Canada right now is Danielle Smith. I mean, oh my God, where to begin? We find out now that she has been promoting pro-Russian, pro-Putin separatist propaganda. This is not acceptable when we see the horrific death rates, torture, killing and rape that are happening in Ukraine. However, she says that those who do not want to wear a mask are the most discriminated against people in the history of Canada. We need to see all leaders in this country standing up against Putin, because the economic devastation that is happening around the world is impacting us here. It is also from a basic human rights point of view that we need to stay focused.

Again, I mention this because this is the politics of disinformation that the Conservatives are opting for to cover the fact that they are not delivering real results for people. When we came in and said we were going to double the GST tax credit, the Conservative leader said that if we gave money to working-class people or senior citizens to help pay their bills, the money would be somehow “vaporized”. That was the term he used.

“Vaporized” is a magical Conservative economic term, kind of like cryptocurrency, and if we are talking about what got vaporized, how about the $1 trillion in crypto savings that disappeared after the Conservative Party leader told people to invest their savings in cryptocurrency? That is vaporization. What New Democrats are doing is delivering.

Today, we are hearing a million reasons Conservatives are telling ordinary Canadians they should not have dental care, and that it is not necessary. However, the bill before us today will affect 500,000 children who do not have access to dental care, and that is an enormous number of children who deserve it. We see that 50% of low-income Canadians have no dental care services, and only one-third of Quebeckers have private dental care insurance.

For anyone who has a child who needs their teeth fixed, it is an incredible pressure, and I know from talking to families about how they try to find ways to get dental care. However, this year, Bill C-31 will give two payments to low-income families with children under 12. This is not the full solution, but it is the interim step that is necessary in order to get this program in place. This was in our supply agreement with the Liberals.

Now, it must be said that just because we have a supply agreement with the Liberals does not mean that we get along with the Liberals. This is about pushing these guys, because I have to say that pushing Liberals to actually do something is like wrestling with the Teletubbies. Just trying to even get something to grip on with a Liberal is difficult at the best of times, but in this minority Parliament, we found where it was needed and we knew it was on dental care. This year, we pushed them. We actually pushed these Teletubbies and we are going to get that money to low-income families, but that is only the beginning. We need this national program because senior citizens have a right to it and ordinary working-class people have a right to it. We need to move on this.

Therefore, while my colleagues on the other side are going to jump down the rabbit holes of conspiracy and YouTube nut jobbery, we will stay focused on getting kids their dental care, on getting money to the working class and seniors, and on taking on the grocery giants and greedflation.

I will be here all week and I am ready to take questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member.

I never thought of myself as a Teletubby, but I can tell the member that I am thinking in terms of the process of getting the bill through the House, given the opposition to seeing this legislation ultimately pass in a timely fashion. There might even be some members who do not ever want to see this legislation pass, so I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is important that we move this motion in order to be able to get the legislation through the House. If we do not and if we were not prepared to move the motion, I do not believe it would pass.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very important point. We are here in Parliament, sent by the Canadian people, and they sent us a very clear message in the 2021 election. They did not like that unnecessary election; they basically sent the same configuration and said to do some work, and doing some work means that at a certain point we put the interests of Canadian people above our own partisan interests.

That means we do not have to get along, but we have to say there are objectives that have to be met, and the objective that has to be met is that we have to get this dental care through. If we do not get this thing through, if we allow the Conservatives and the Bloc to obstruct it, that would mean children would not get this service, and it would mean that next year seniors and families would not get this service. We have to put our own partisan interests to the back once in a while and say that as a Parliament we can come together, so yes, we are going to work on this; we are going to get this thing through and we are going to get proper dental care for all those who deserve it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am just wondering, as the member said that he put aside his partisanship. I would argue that perhaps he is trying to look for relevance at this time. At the top of his speech he was talking about how this is an NDP initiative. This is definitely a government bill, so I am wondering, as the NDP seeks relevance in this place, what its next initiative will be.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for obviously looking to New Democrats now for the direction of where this House is going to lead. That is about showing up, because, God help the poor Liberals, they just do not seem to have direction. Yes, we pushed them on the GST credits. We are hoping they are going to be willing to stand up to the grocery giants, as I would like to see my colleague do as well.

As for what is coming next, stay tuned, because there is a whole bunch of elements we need to work on in terms of housing. We have to get actual housing built. That would be a good booster for the economy. We need to get investments, particularly in western Canada, in the energy transformation. We hear a lot of hot air, but we need to see investments, so we can actually start to build a new clean energy economy.

Any time my colleague wants to know what is coming up next in the House, he can come over and I will explain to him how we are going to push these Teletubbies, bring them into the promised land and make them a relevant government.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are not against dental insurance. Quebec already provides dental coverage for children.

I wonder if the member has thought about this, or does he know if anyone else has thought about how this measure will fit in with the program that already exists in Quebec. How does this not penalize Quebec? Why not simply transfer the money to Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, we have certainly thought about this issue, and we have been working across the board to make sure children everywhere are entitled to this. We know that only one-third of Quebeckers actually have private dental coverage. They are left woefully behind in this area. If we actually have a program that works, we will make sure every child in this country, followed by every senior and by families who have a right to it, are able to obtain it, whether it is in Abitibi or in Crowsnest Pass.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members who are having side conversations to maybe take them outside. At one point there were at least five conversations going on at one time at one end of the House, so I just want to remind members, if they want to have those conversations, to please step out into the lobby.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment today to wish all of my colleagues in the House of Commons a happy Thanksgiving. We have not been in this place since then, and I want to reach out to everyone and extend that greeting.

I want to note that I am certain that many of us, when we were in our constituencies last week, heard from our constituents that the price of food, the price of fuel and the cost of living in Canada is becoming untenable. It is becoming something that Canadians cannot handle. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to stand up and find ways to work together with other parties and other members to make life more affordable for Canadians. I am absolutely convinced that one of the ways we can do that is with dental care.

Our job here is to support those people who do not have the same things we have. It is to support people in Canada and around the world in meeting their human rights and needs. Therefore, it would be remiss of me, as an Albertan and an Alberta MP, to not take a moment here to deeply condemn the comments made by our very new Premier of Alberta.

I want to tell the House about people: people living in poverty; people who are houseless; people with disabilities; people living without drinking water; indigenous people in this country, particularly women and girls; the families and children who went to residential schools, and those children who lost their lives; BIPOC folks; LGBTQ2S+ and SOGI folks; members of the Jewish community; members of the Muslim community; and women in Iran, Afghanistan and Ukraine. These are the people the Conservative Premier of Alberta said were not as discriminated against as the unvaccinated in our province.

I want to add to that and say that we need to look at these lists of people who have suffered unbearably and not discount all of that to say that the people who have suffered the most are the people who chose not to take a free, safe, miraculous and scientifically proven vaccine. I spent much of last year in this place talking about how we needed to get vaccines to other places in the world that did not have access to them, but our premier, the Conservative Premier of Alberta, has discounted every other group that has suffered harm and suffered devastatingly during this pandemic. I would be remiss if I did not raise that in this place.

Today, we are talking about dental care, and this is another opportunity for me to point out that the Conservatives do not seem to have a clue at all. We are talking about dental care for children under 12 years of age. The Leader of the Opposition has had dental care for himself and his children for almost 20 years, and all members of the Conservative Party have a gold-plated dental package that allows them to take care of their teeth, their children's teeth and their spouse's teeth, yet they do not want that for every other person in Canada. My children will never not be able to get their teeth fixed because they have access to a dental program that allows them to get their teeth fixed. The idea that the Conservatives would not want that for every child in this country, the idea that the things they have and their children have are not things they would want children across this country to have, baffles me. I do not understand.

I walk around in my constituency, and I hope we all do as it is very important. Edmonton Strathcona is of course the most beautiful constituency in the country, but I hope we all walk around in our constituencies. I am hearing from folks across the board who are delighted with dental care. They are delighted this is finally happening. It was recommended in 1968, but it is finally happening because of the NDP.

Do the Conservatives not walk around in their ridings? Do they not talk to their constituents? Do they not understand what is there?

One of the other things I wanted to point out is that we are hearing in this place that this is not needed because there is a program already that helps low-income Canadians. In Alberta, one needs to make around $27,000 to be able to access some services. Basically, one needs to be living that close to the poverty line to be able to access just a few of those services.

If one does not believe children should have access to dental care and does not think it is important for the Canadian government to support that, is there an economic argument we can make? Can we explain to the Conservatives how much it costs when a child ends up in the emergency room because they cannot afford preventive dental care and how much more it costs later on when we do not do the basic dental care at the outset?

When Conservatives say not to worry because people have dental care, pharmacare and all of these things, it is not true. It is not true for the vast majority of Canadians, and they know that.

One other thing I wanted to bring up in my speech today is that I am so incredibly proud to be part of the New Democratic Party that has brought dental care forward to the House of Commons. My colleague before me from Timmins—James Bay mentioned just how incredible it is to be able to say we were able to push the Liberals, and I think he called them Teletubbies, and get them to do this work, and to hold our horses because there is more we can do. That is kind of what I want to talk about.

Dental care is great, but what else do we need? We need pharmacare. We need eye care. We need mental health supports in this country. As people struggle with COVID, the cost of living and all of these things, there is the desperate need—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

I want to ask members who are having conversations to please take them outside. I know members are starting to come in and are getting ready for question period, but it is very disrespectful to be having conversations and speaking loud enough for me to hear what the conversation is while another member has the floor.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona can continue.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, we need to have things like pharmacare, eye care, mental health support, supports for people living with disabilities and supports for indigenous people, who have not even basic rights being given to them. We need to have support for people around the world. We have a food crisis. Putin is once again threatening famine to millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. We need to be supporting women getting an education in Afghanistan and other places around the world.

I know what the Conservatives will say. They will say that we cannot afford it and pay for it. There are a few things I want to say to them. First of all, we do have some solutions. The first solution is something I hope they will support today, which is the motion we brought forward where we would make sure grocery stores are not able to gouge consumers and that grocery stores are not able to make massive profits while the cost of food goes up in Canada.

We have suggested a profiteering tax. This is a great idea, and in fact, something the Conservatives in the United Kingdom have done. We could do that. We could have wealth taxes. There is $30 billion of unclaimed taxes we need to go after. It is always going to be a shock to me, but I am standing up here on the same side as the CEO of Shell begging the government to tax corporations at a higher rate so that the burden of paying for social programs, which are so vital, falls equally and does not fall on everyday Canadians and small businesses in our communities, and so that the corporations and the utlrawealthy are paying their fair share. To me, this does not seem like it is brain surgery. This seems very doable and easy.

When we talk about how we are going to pay for it, we have a world of options. Maybe, as my friend from Timmins—James Bay mentioned, if one wants to hold tight, I would be happy to bring those ideas forward. The NDP is happy to push the government to make those things happen. We are going to be doing it today. I am extremely proud of that motion. I look forward to answering questions.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard many members of the opposition speak on the legislation and they often say province X has this or province Y has that. By bringing forward this legislation, we would ensure that every child under the age of 12 in Canada, in every region of our country, has some dental benefits. It seems to me that point has been lost on the opposition.

The member referred to the uniqueness of Alberta, but the provinces all are different. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts on how important it is that children under the age of 12 from coast to coast to coast are provided this badly needed service.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for calling the member a Teletubby. I know it was meant in good fun.

In terms of the situation in Alberta, absolutely we need to make sure that all children in Alberta have access to dental care, but I think he is getting at the idea that, as a parliamentarian who loves Edmonton Strathcona, I want to make sure children in Nova Scotia, children in B.C. and children in Yukon, all of them, have access to the same dental care program, that they can all access dental care and that there are no gaps or holes that families and young children could fall through.

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

Madam Speaker, the framing of this debate by the member is to say that, if we want people to have access to a particular thing or service, it necessarily follows that the government should provide that, and that if people oppose the idea of federally mandating and controlling dental care, somehow they oppose children having dental care, which is ridiculous. I do not support, for instance, the government buying food for everyone. That does not mean I do not think food is important and indeed essential. I just do not think that the government providing it is the best solution to the problem in the vast majority of cases.

Does the member acknowledge that, with the significant failures in terms of delivery and provision in core federal services, such as health care, passports and other areas, the government should recognize that maybe there are other institutions that could deliver these services more effectively and that more federal intrusion is not a solution? In fact, in many cases, it is the very cause of the problem.