Debates of Oct. 18th, 2022

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is going to spend another $10 billion. The government's national debt is already over a trillion dollars. The latest update shows consumer debt is at $2.24 trillion, which is a 16% increase from the prepandemic levels with about a 10% increase year over year from the second quarter of last year.

We are talking about the cost of living relief, but I am wondering how adding another $10 billion to a program the provincial governments are not necessarily asking for is going to help. They are looking for other health care transfers and spending.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's question clearly shows Canadians the approach of our government under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the approach of the official opposition.

When our government introduced legislation and lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing them on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, the Conservatives vote against it. It is very clear who the Conservatives will continue advocating for. What I know is in my community people are looking for a safe and affordable place to call home. People are speaking to me about affordability and the crunch they are facing. People are trying to make ends meet.

We hear the Conservatives talk about it, but they do not want to propose any meaningful solutions. Today we have an opportunity to actually advance another solution. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is another thing to help Canadians through very tough times. It is unfortunate the Conservatives cannot see that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about housing. She said that it is a challenge for her, that it is a problem in her riding, and that it is an important issue, and she is right about that.

Today, I was talking to someone who is very involved in the fight for new social housing in Quebec. This person is very involved with Quebeckers who are less fortunate and poorly housed. This person was pinning a lot of hope on the NDP-Liberal agreement. They thought that if the NDP had signed an agreement with the Liberals, then it must mean that something was going to be done about housing. They were expecting investments. When I told them about the $500 under the Canada housing benefit, they were devastated. They said that this was not the right thing to do and that new housing units need to be built. That is $500 being spent for nothing. Next year, we will have to start over. More housing needs to be built for the future. They were just devastated.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting, because I think there are members within the opposition who are not understanding that this is another investment in Canadians. We have a $72-billion national housing strategy, which is actually building units in communities across the country.

Often, we hear the Bloc saying that housing should be delivered through the provinces, but it does not want to believe in partnerships. The federal government has actually re-entered the housing space. Part of why we were not able to be proactive with regard to the issues we are facing is that certain people do not believe we can do more and work better together.

The federal government will be a partner with provinces and territories. The federal government will work with regions and municipalities. The federal government will be there to support Canadians, because we believe that every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, while the New Democrats welcome this benefit, more short- and long-term solutions are needed to address the housing crisis. I have a constituent in Whale Cove. He is the mayor, Percy Kabloona, who lives in a social housing unit that has not been renovated in five years. His house has split in half, and they use duct tape to keep the wind from coming in. I know that a lot more investments are needed.

Will the government invest in building sufficient units of social or co-op housing, with the necessary subsidies to meet the needs of those in core need?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the stories the hon. member is sharing, we are hearing. I will tell her that the federal government is committed to doing whatever it can.

Today, we are able to see this legislation advance because of a partnership between two partners, recognizing that outcomes matter and that we can work better together in this place.

I hope the member recognizes that the federal government is here to work with members of all parties, as long as we deliver better outcomes for Canadians. I will continue fighting for the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. I am confident that the member will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. We are running out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we are here to talk about late into the evening tonight is a huge inflationary bill. It is a bill that is adding tons of government spending, and I have some serious concerns about it.

One of the spaces where I have some real concern is over the fact that the delivery of health care is the purview and the jurisdiction of provinces. I have heard, many times over, members opposite say that the federal government has a space here because it has the power of spending. That is absolutely accurate: The federal government has the power of spending, effectively, in any space it wants, but the question is whether this is the best way to be spending this money.

My space on this is a serious question, and I have not heard answers from the government. Instead of it being the member for Kingston and the Islands getting up and trying to do a “gotcha” question, I would love to hear answers, perhaps from the Minister of Health, as to what work happened with provincial and territorial governments to see what programs they had in place, so that we looked at best practices and took the best programs that existed in provinces and territories across the country and tried to build on those, rather than create an “Ottawa knows best” scheme. This is all this is.

This is not a dental program. This is not dental insurance. Members from the NDP keep saying that we are voting against this, and that members in the House have dental care. We actually have a dental insurance program, a private insurance program, like many Canadians have. We have a dental insurance program.

This is not a dental insurance program that the government is creating. That would be a dental program. What we would actually be getting is a convoluted program that would deliver money through a CRA application based on income, which would not take into account what I think are important factors, such as how many children are in the family. If we had consulted with provinces and territories, we might have found that provinces and territories take into account some of these things, whether it is a single-parent or a dual-parent family, or how many children there are in the family, some of these pieces. It is critically important.

Dental care does not cost the same in rural Alberta as it costs in downtown Toronto or in rural Nova Scotia. Dental care varies widely even in my own community. If I call dentists, trying to figure out the costs of a dental cleaning, it could vary widely, just in my own community. I think this highlights one of the issues with this program. It puts a lot of weight without actually having the program to support and make sure the children who need this the most are getting it.

We have heard many times over through these debates that 70% of kids across the country have access to some form of dental care through provincial programs that already exist. That means 30% of children do not have access. I am curious as to whether the government did any research to see exactly what that 30% of kids looks like, and how we could support that 30% rather than just make a program that is “one size fits all”, which is the easiest to deliver but does not necessarily put the resources where they are most needed.

Frankly, Canadians are struggling right now: they are struggling to pay their bills at the end of each month; they are struggling to be able to afford to live, and while this would help in the short term, it would not cover the dental costs for a lot of kids who are struggling right now. This might cover a piece or part of the program.

Have we looked into whether provincial governments that currently have programs in place might pull their programs back because the federal government would have this program in place, therefore costing the federal government even more in the long term? This is part of the problem of not working with the provinces and territories and fixing the health transfer.

We have seen all the territorial and provincial leaders sit down and come together to say they want to see higher health transfers. What we have not seen from the Liberal government is meaningful work to get to that solution, meaningful work to build a dental plan. This is a payment scheme at best. This is not actually a dental program.

This is what happens when the members of the NDP-Liberal coalition realize that they effectively have a gun or a guillotine held to their heads so that if they do not deliver on these promises by a certain date, we will be triggered into an election. They came up with a fast solution. I would argue that we need to not be looking at fast solutions. We need to be looking at the best solutions for Canadians. I do not believe that this gets there.

The fact is that this is an omnibus bill. It brings together dental and rental benefits. It is effectively two different departments with two different ministers, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Health, but it is going to the health committee. This is a health bill, even though it talks about a rental benefit. I am not sure how a rental benefit and housing relate to the portfolio of health, but that was how it was decided. Those are some of the decisions that must be made with an omnibus bill, like which minister takes the lead.

I find it awfully rich. When the Conservatives were in power, the members opposite used to complain about the fact that there were omnibus bills and closure motions, yet the second the government came into power, it had no problem doing the exact same thing. It was a simple thing to complain as the opposition, but it was not an ideological space that they were in where they truly were in disagreement with us. They just did not like it being used against them.

I think it is sad that we are sitting here at 11:30 at night discussing a critically important bill that is going to add $10 billion of spending at a time when we already have out-of-control inflation. We already have people who are routinely going to food banks to provide food for their children. Not having healthy food has to be a contributing factor to kids' dental health.

I can only imagine that this is a serious problem, but this is something that the government could have worked on. It could have put actual effort in to create a real program, working with provinces and territories to see which jurisdictions do it best and which ones are doing it poorly. I know in my home province of Alberta we have a dental care program that covers kids up to 18, including certain kids up to 19 as long as they are still in high school. I know that the thresholds are a little bit lower, in terms of the income thresholds, but they do have some qualifications in there for when there are multiple children or if it is a single parent. It even goes as far as adding to the income for the threshold based on how many kids over four children meet the age. I think that is an important qualifier.

I am not here to say that Alberta's program is the be-all and end-all. In fact, I do not know what all the programs look like. I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands really has a problem with the Ontario program and does not think it is sufficient.

What I would love to see would be for the health committee to be tasked with studying what the dental programs are across the provinces and territories and where we could find the optimal solution. That is something that I think has been completely missed in this omnibus bill, this bill that has been set with such strict timelines that we might not even have a real opportunity to have witnesses at committee because of how soon the government is forcing us to go to clause-by-clause.

Frankly, that concerns me. I think that Canadians expect that important pieces of legislation with this level of spending would have extremely high diligence, expertise and hear from witnesses, but not by using stalling techniques or filibustering. Legitimately, we should have more than a few hours to hear from witnesses on a bill that adds $10 billion of spending. I think that is part of the issue. The government is so quick to ram it down our throats and then say that we are stalling the bill.

The actual fact is that I would love to work with all members of the House. I do not think I am speaking out of turn by saying that most members from the Conservative side would like to work with the government, but what we see is this costly coalition continuously ramming its way through Parliament and disrespecting the fact that it is a minority Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, this question has been asked of a number of Conservatives this evening, all of whom have conveniently sidestepped it. I would like to ask this member the same question that has been asked and see if she can provide an answer or if she will sidestep it as all the others have done.

Why are Conservatives completely content with members of Parliament receiving dental care—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

They are heckling me. They are heckling me because they know where I am going with this. I would like to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I know the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is able to answer this, as I have just heard her speech. I would ask members to hold on and allow the question to be asked so the hon. member can respond.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, Conservatives know where I am going with this, so they are heckling me to drown me out because they do not want to hear the question.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, they are doing it again.

Why is it that members of Parliament should enjoy the luxury of having dental care, while they are not willing to extend the same luxury to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is awfully rich coming from the member opposite, and if he had been here to listen to my speech, and intently listen, he would have heard that I addressed this in my remarks.

Frankly, what members of Parliament receive in terms of dental care is a dental insurance program. This is simply a spending scheme. It is not the same. Please do not misconstrue what this bill would do.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Alberta program she is talking about. I have, unfortunately, had to use that program. The Conservatives are upset with the fact that we are going to be delivering care to over 500,000 children.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, they are heckling right now. That is how badly they want to block this legislation and how badly they do not want those children to get that support. The Conservatives do not want that to happen.

I was raised 20 kilometres south of the member's riding. I had to enlist in that program and did not get the care I needed from that program. That is why this program is needed. Why will she not agree?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, if the member had listened to the speech that I delivered, I addressed the fact that I was not sure which program across this country was the best at delivering, but I do know that this is not a program to provide dental care. This is a payment scheme. This is not going to solve the problem long term. This is a band-aid.

Frankly, I want support for the 30% of kids in this country who do not have dental care, but this is not going to solve the problem to make sure that the kids who need it the most are getting it. This is only a band-aid solution so the Liberal government can tell its costly coalition it succeeded.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech quite carefully, and I would ask the member if she would care to expand on one of the points she made, which is the cynicism with which this bill came about.

There is this coalition where one coalition partner put a gun to the other coalition partner's head and said it must give it a dental program. The government puts together this short-term payment band-aid, calls it a dental program, and the other coalition partner pretends that it is a dental program and cheers the government on for it.

Would the member care to comment on the cynicism around this bill?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the amazing work he does for the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge and all of northwest Calgary. He is one of the hardest-working members of Parliament in northwest Calgary, if not the hardest-working member.

One of the things the member highlights that is critically important is that this is just a spending scheme. This is not a program. This is simply words to check a box. This is not the solution.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to speak to the government’s plan for making life more affordable for hard-working Canadians through Bill C-31, an act respecting benefits in relation to dental care.

I will begin my remarks by reminding the House why this legislation is necessary. More and more Canadians are feeling the rising costs of living. From food and rent to many other aspects of our daily lives, living standards are becoming more and more challenging to maintain.

While inflation is a global challenge brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and exacerbated by Russia’s illegal and criminal invasion of Ukraine, it is critical for our government to help families weather the storm by putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians.

Since 2015, our government has cut taxes for the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. We have delivered a Canada child benefit and raised it every year to continue putting more money back in the pockets of nine out of 10 families with children.

Our government is working hard to make Canadian lives more affordable and ensure that they have access to support when they need it most. That is why we are proposing Bill C-31, which would deliver over $900 million to support oral health through the Canada dental benefit, starting in 2022-23 for children under the age of 12 without dental insurance.

We are introducing this bill because we know the cost of dental care can be difficult for many families. This means parents have to make difficult choices to postpone or forgo important dental care for their children at a time when their teeth are developing.

In my community of Windsor-Essex, one in four residents do not have dental insurance. The results should surprise no one. In a 2018 report by the local health unit, the percentage of children with decay or requiring urgent care increased by 51%.

In each year, there are 1,000 emergency room visits for oral health problems. These preventable emergency room visits cost our community over $500,000 each year. This dental program will be transformative for my community.

The gap in dental coverage is not just a Windsor—Tecumseh problem. Dental surgery under general anaesthesia is the most common day surgery at most pediatric hospitals in Canada, accounting for one-third of all day surgeries performed on children between the ages of one and five.

About 57% of children aged six to 11 have had a cavity, with an average of 2.5 teeth affected by decay. In more severe cases, tooth decay in young children is an infectious disease that can cause pain, interfere with sleep and growth, and cause lifelong impacts on their general health.

Giving Canadian families the means to improve their children's oral health through the Canada dental benefit will mean those children will have access to the care they need to improve their health and quality of life. It will reduce the need for more invasive and costly treatments later on.

The benefit proposed in this legislation would help break the cycle of poor oral health for the youngest and most vulnerable Canadians by making access to dental care for children more affordable.

The Canada dental benefit would provide direct payments to eligible applicants, totalling up to $650 per year, and it is estimated that over 500,000 Canadian children could benefit from this targeted investment of over $900 million.

To access the benefit, parents and guardians of eligible children would need to apply through the Canada Revenue Agency and attest that their child does not have access to private dental care coverage, that they will have out-of-pocket dental care expenses for which they will use the benefit and not be fully reimbursed under another government plan, and that they understand they will need to provide documentation to verify out-of-pocket expenses incurred within the benefit period. This could include providing receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

The government will be taking action to ensure that eligible Canadians receive the benefit as quickly as possible, ideally as early as this year if our Conservative colleagues co-operate. I certainly hope they do.

The target implementation date for the Canada dental benefit is December 1, 2022, pending parliamentary approval and the royal assent of enabling legislation. The program would cover expenses retroactive to October 1, 2022, so long as the child remains eligible on December 1.

Making life more affordable is one of our government's primary goals. Looking after the health of Canadians is another top priority. This dental plan addresses both.

In budget 2022, the government committed $5.3 billion over five years, and $1.7 billion ongoing, to provide dental care for Canadians who otherwise could not afford it. In addition to the Canada dental benefit, the government is working diligently to design and implement a long-term national dental care program, but this is complex work that will take time. It will take time to get it right.

The government is committed to working with key stakeholders, industry partners, academics, dentistry associations and organizations to help inform decisions on implementing a national dental care program. In the meantime, the proposed Canada dental benefit would provide parents with children under 12 with financial support to help address the dental care needs of their children.

I trust that all members will agree and join us in supporting this bill that will help families in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh and also across this country. The government understands that parents want to do what is best for their children and that financial barriers should not prevent them from accessing the necessary dental care their children require. Passing this bill would be an important step toward protecting the oral health of children throughout Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice to have the final question of the night, and the final say perhaps.

One of the big things we would like to know on this side is exactly how many provincial ministers of health in the provinces and territories were consulted with respect to this bill.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, a lot of the members here have been dancing around this issue and providing complicated questions and answers, but the issue to me is quite simple. One in four residents in my community do not have dental insurance. As a result, what we are seeing every year is an increasing severity of oral health deterioration among children. This dental health benefit will address both of those issues. I think this issue is quite simple.