Debates of Oct. 18th, 2022

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's speech was very entertaining, but Bill C-31 is a measure that is based in positive health outcomes for Canadians. Even when universal health care was first being discussed in this country, there were people like this member who did not want to see Canadians have positive health outcomes and benefits.

Fast-forward to today, and I do not think there is anything we are more proud of as Canadians than our ability to provide everyone in this country with health care if one is Canadian or a permanent resident. We have had challenges with health care, but I do not think the solution anyone would propose on any side of the House would be to do away with our universal health care system. It would be to invest more to make sure we have the doctors needed. Dental is a part of that type of system.

I have heard from many small business owners who have said that they would not have survived if it were not for the benefits this government provided, which the members opposite supported, for the economy and those businesses to survive. Does the member not have any businesses in his riding that benefited positively from the benefits that were provided?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is that there absolutely were many businesses in my riding that benefited from the government's support programs. My focus was on the design of those programs, where there were also many businesses that did not need that support and some businesses that actually abused the programs because of their poor design.

The suggestion that somehow we as Conservatives do not want positive health outcomes is beneath a member of the House. We are all members of Parliament who represent our communities. The member suggests we somehow do not support positive health outcomes for Canadians. We have done this regularly to support Canadians in their time of need.

On the suggestion that the universality of our health care is somehow at stake, and we are challenging the universality of our health care system, show me evidence that we are doing that. Show me evidence. You have none.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind hon. members, and I realize it is late and we are tired, to speak through the Chair and not directly to each other, unless of course they want the Speaker's opinion. However, nobody wants to hear that. They want to hear each other's opinions.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment through you. I know that the parties are usually in caucus on Wednesday morning, tomorrow. I have a bit of a special request for the Conservative Party. Since we are talking about economic issues, for the mental health and well-being of the rest of the House, I would ask that the Conservatives stop saying “triple, triple, triple the tax”. It may have been funny the first 350 times, but now it is just “annoying, annoying, annoying”.

That said, I have a question for my colleague. Our colleague made a comment a few months ago suggesting that some of the ideas proposed by his future leader, particularly related to Bitcoin or firing the top executives at the central bank, were absurd, to say the least. We know that the fight against inflation is important to him.

What does he think of his leader's suggestions now?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has been speaking about is inflation. He has been speaking about taxes. He has been speaking about the cost of living and affordability of housing, all of the things that matter to Canadians. That is what he has been speaking to in the House, and I have been here for every single meeting.

The biggest challenge facing Canada today is the affordability crisis, where Canadians are having to make the choice between groceries and putting fuel in their cars or between sending their kids to ballet lessons and paying for rent. Those are decisions we should never have to foist on Canadians, yet it is the Liberal government's irresponsible approach to borrowing and spending that has brought us to this point. As I mentioned earlier, we can do better.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-31. I have a few comments to put on the record.

Throughout the debate today, I asked some questions of some of my Liberal colleagues, and they have not really come up with an answer, so I am going delve a bit deeper into the question on the consultations that were done with the provincial health ministers before this piece of legislation was brought to the floor of the House of Commons.

I also heard a comment from the Liberal member for Vancouver Granville about how the government has done some of the best consultations with health ministers ever of any government, which from my standpoint, is a bit of a stretch.

Before I had the honour of being a member of Parliament, I was also a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. I still have some friends and good colleagues there, one of whom happens to be the current health minister, Minister Paul Merriman, of Saskatchewan. During the debate today, I took the time to send Minister Merriman a text asking him how much consultation had been done with provincial health ministers regarding the dental program we are discussing on the floor of the House of Commons today. He stated that they have had zero discussions at his level with the feds and there was nothing with his officials that he know of either. It has not been on the agenda at any FPT meetings.

Therefore, when some of my colleagues and hon. friends from the other side of the House talk about consultations, I would like them to make sure that what they are saying is factual and that they have had the proper consultations, because I think that is an important part of this bill and something that should have been done before we talked about a $10-billion program. This is not a one-time program, but an ongoing operational program worth $10 billion a year from here on out.

As we know, with inflation running rampant right now, one of the big things we hear from non-partisan economists is that the Canadian government has to get spending under control. We are sitting here discussing a $10-billion program, when this should be a discussion with the provinces because health care is a provincial jurisdiction.

We know that we send transfer payments to the provinces, but when I asked what the priorities for health care were, a member of the NDP talked about it as being one of the priorities. I asked what the top priorities in health care would be for provinces, and he also tried to put different words in my mouth. What I had asked was this: If there were a wish list for health ministers across this country, would a federal dental program be at the top of that wish list if the government was going to spend $10 billion? With a $10-billion price tag, is a dental program what they would have asked for? I asked this question because 70% of Canadians have dental coverage.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which is more of a courtesy. The ParlVu shot for the member for Regina—Lewvan was being impeded by the gentleman, our colleague, who was standing beside you. I just wanted to make sure that it was brought to your attention so the member's clip was not impacted as a result.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for pointing that out. I will let the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan continue, and we will try not to impede him. I am sure everybody wants to see him while we hear him.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants. I appreciate it. I do have a better side, so hopefully that is caught with the camera angle this time.

I was saying that 70% of Canadians do have dental coverage. There are two jurisdictions in the country that do not have it right now for low-income people, and they are Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. These are instances where I would ask if the consultations were done. I want to put that on the record because I think it is very important.

When we are talking about programs, one of the things that could have been on the table, if the proper consultation had been done, could have been to help top up the provincial programs instead of recreating a federal program. If there were consultations with provincial ministers, that could have part of the discussions on the table, and the price tag of this program could have been substantially less if that consultation would have been done because it could have helped with the provincial programs.

Another thing that could have been talked about is what the provincial programs would look like going forward and where they needed the most help. From my point of view, $10 billion is still a lot of money.

In Saskatchewan, some of the struggles we are having in health care are in the recruitment and retention of doctors and nurses. They are a very important part of our health care. One of the things our provincial government is focused on is recruiting 1,000 more health care workers because that is where they see a need. That is where consultations become a very important part of the discussion about this program.

Another thing I find interesting, and the hon. member for Abbotsford brought this up, is that we are talking about a government that had trouble running a $54-million ArriveCAN app and it now wants to try and run a $10-billion dental program. We are talking about a government that had a tough time running passport offices. We are talking about a government that had a difficult time trying to make sure that the proper funding was going out during COVID-19 with the CERB and CEBA cheques.

I realize why they want this federal program rolled out. We have a Prime Minister who has a perpetual white knight syndrome. He always has to come in and be the hero of the story. There could be other options out there with provincial colleagues trying to make sure that we bring forward a program that our provinces and federal government agreed on together, but that would mean that our Prime Minister would not be able to take all the credit.

Sometimes it is not about doing the right thing, but it is about being recognized as a hero and that is one of the problems our Prime Minister has. He always wants to play the hero. Halloween is coming up. We saw him dress up as Superman. It is something that strikes a chord. I do not think that was an outfit. I think that was a career choice.

One of the problems is I believe that if there is too much consultation with our provincial colleagues and we just had the money go into a more provincially dominated program, the feds would not get the credit. I hope that is not the case because we should all be here to do the right thing for the people of our country and the citizens who need help the most.

I want to talk about something my colleague from Abbotsford said. He is a very wise and experienced colleague. Everyone in the House, I believe, wants to have better health care outcomes. I do not think there is a person in the chamber who does not want to make sure that Canadians are getting the health care they deserve. We are having this conversation, and kids, the most vulnerable, are getting all of proper health care they deserve, which will help them have healthier lives. They will, therefore, be better off in the future.

Right now, we are discussing if we are doing the proper consultations. I think that is an important question we need answered by the federal government, the health minister and people speaking tonight. If this were such an important program, why was this not brought up at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings? Why were the provincial health ministers not consulted?

One thing I will put on the table and let sit there for a few minutes is that when this backroom deal, this costly coalition, was signed, members on this side asked how much this deal was going to cost the Liberal government to make sure that it has the NDP support until 2025. What is the final bill for the taxpayers of Canada?

This is just a start. This is a $10-billion down payment on making sure that the Liberals are in government until 2025 with the support of the NDP. The problem I see is that there is another two years, and I do not know how much more debt is going to be compiled.

Canadians do not believe it, but this government has wracked up more debt than all other governments in Canadian history. I do not know how much more it is going to cost to keep this Liberal government in power until 2025. This is only the tip of the iceberg in making sure that the costly coalition is in power until 2025. Canadians cannot afford it. One thing I understand is that the more this government spends, the more the Canadian taxpayer has to pay.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Northwest Territories legislature last week, and it operates on the basis of a consensus government. I really enjoyed the decorum, and so I will ask my question trying to keep in the spirit of the decorum that I saw in the Northwest Territories.

The member talked about deficits and spending. I want to remind my hon. colleague that right now the government is in a surplus position. The government is being mindful about how it brings forward spending measures. We were there for Canadians. He talked about the debt that was taken on. It was really important during the pandemic.

I also want to talk about the program specifically, because, yes, this is one initiative. We on this side of the House and indeed the NDP, and perhaps the Bloc as well, support providing dental care for those vulnerable Canadians.

On the broader question of health, does the member think that this is just a money issue? Given his experience in the legislature in Saskatchewan, is there work that provinces and territories need to do to reform their system given that, of the OECD countries, Canada is one of the highest in terms of spending per capita on health? What else can be done by provincial legislatures to make changes beyond just monetary spending?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep with the decorum mentioned by the member for Kings—Hants. I appreciate working with him on the agriculture committee.

In the crux of my speech, the point I was trying to make is that the consultation was not had with provincial health ministers. I will give the member a direct answer. I think that the federal government could have helped top up some of the provincial programs and even help my friend from Manitoba. It should have been a provincial program through the provincial health ministers and not done through a federal minister in rolling out another $10-billion federal program. That would have been a really good start.

I would be very interested to know if my colleague from Kings—Hants could reach out to the health minister in Nova Scotia and ask if he or she had been consulted about this program, and if the $10 billion could have been used for something other than this in the province of Nova Scotia.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the first half of the 1990s, provincial health care systems have been sabotaged, particularly in Quebec. They were sabotaged from the moment the transfers stopped.

Since then, while the provinces have to hire staff, doctors, nurses and orderlies, the money stays in Ottawa. Is that acceptable?

Is it acceptable that, after having sucked the lifeblood out of provincial health care systems and Quebec's health care system, Ottawa wants to use that money to create a pan-Canadian dental care system?

There is nothing wrong with helping those who need it. However, since Quebec understands social programs and is going to do a better job than Ottawa, it would probably be much more acceptable if Quebec had the right to opt out with full financial compensation.

My question is this. Is it acceptable, this vampiric system that encroaches on and invades Quebec's jurisdiction, or should Quebec simply get the hell out of this country?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I note my colleague's passion.

My answer would be that I think the federal government should respect provincial jurisdiction. That was the point in the argument I was making when I was talking about whether or not the federal government is respecting jurisdictions at all any more.

The federal government is getting into all of the provincial jurisdictions, whether it be health care or the environment, and it is trying to actually bully provinces into doing things its way. Do I think there should be a new federal program worth $10 billion? No. Do I think the provinces could roll out this program and better spend $10 billion when it comes to health care? Yes, and I think that is something we should all think about before we vote on the bill.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Regina—Lewvan. He said that this was at the top of no one's priority list and that no one really wanted a dental care program. His evidence is that he talked to lots of provincial politicians and ministers.

Has he actually talked to constituents in his riding with kids or to working families? The Conservatives say that they do not want people to make hard choices. Well, there are working families who are making hard choices every day due to not being able to provide dental care. Has he talked to people with disabilities and seniors about the need for dental care?

I think what he will find is that the $10-billion program is a down payment on good health for Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons from members of the NDP, who have left behind working people all across the country. That party is going to get decimated in the next federal election.

I will talk to federal ministers because they are the people who should actually run health care programs. I will talk to federal ministers because they are the people who actually should be in charge of the environment. If the NDP members were to respect provincial jurisdiction, maybe they would not get wiped out in the next federal election because, as I said before, they are about as relevant as a Blockbuster video store right now. That is to their peril, because they have left all the hard-working Canadians behind and they really support no one anymore.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and talk about a really important issue, an issue that affects children in every region of our country. It is interesting that during this debate, the Conservative Party is trying to give a false impression. If we listened to the Conservatives, we would think there is no need for the program, that in most of the provinces, there is not a problem for children under the age of 12, that we should not worry because programs are in place. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the day, there are children in every region of our country who will benefit from Bill C-31.

I understand Bloc members at times are a little confused and it seems they do not support the motion we are debating now, but I think they are going to support the legislation. The Conservatives, on the other hand, do not support the motion and do not support the legislation. There is a big difference. If we did not bring forward this motion, the bill would not pass in a timely fashion. As my colleague mentioned, if we left it up to the Conservative Party, the 11-year-olds and 12-year-olds today would have no chance to put in a claim.

The Conservative Party understands how important it is, from its perspective, to filibuster to prevent legislation from passing. What we are debating now is not Bill C-31. We are debating the process that we have to put into place to allow Bill C-31 to see the light of day, to allow it to get to committee. That is what this resolution is all about.

Earlier this morning when the House started, we saw the types of tactics the Conservative Party used. It moved concurrence in a committee report in order to kill three hours of government business time so that we would not be talking about the environment, because the Conservatives do not care about the environment. That is the reality. The Conservatives do not want to debate Bill S-5 and now they have come up with a way to prevent it from happening.

The motion we brought forward is supported by the New Democratic Party for good reason. Because of this motion, Canadians from coast to coast to coast can be assured there eventually will be a dental plan, but first the bill has to get through committee, report stage, third reading and through the Senate. However, at the very least, we are seeing some forward movement on the legislation, which I believe is a very strong, positive thing.

The member for Abbotsford talked about health outcomes. This legislation is about health outcomes. Whether people are from British Columbia, as the member for Abbotsford is, P.E.I. or Manitoba and every other jurisdiction in Canada, there are children in need of the type of dental program that this legislation would provide. By denying them the opportunity to have this kind of benefit, children will not get the dental work that is necessary and, as a direct result, will often be taking up emergency room spots in our hospital facilities.

The member for Regina—Lewvan talked about working with the provinces on health care. I would suggest that the member talk to some of the provinces and look at some of the issues facing health care today. One of those issues is backlogs for surgeries and so forth. He should check out the number of spaces in emergency rooms.

When we talk about healthy outcomes, it is more than just putting smiles on kids who are under 12 and supporting children with a dental program. It is also going to help seniors who need hip replacements and individuals who need to use emergency services, in particular our children's services, such as the children's hospital at the Health Sciences Centre. These are the types of things that, when we look at Bill C-31 and we want to talk about health outcomes, have to be factored in.

The member for Abbotsford talked about how we should put the legislation to the side for now because of the issue with inflation, or there was talk about other programs. That is what the member for Abbotsford said. We need to read what it is he said. At the end of the day, he did not believe we could bring forward this program. He wants to show that we are treating the issue of inflation in an appropriate fashion.

Need I remind the former critic for finance, the member for Abbotsford, to compare Canada's inflation rate to other countries around the world? At the end of the day, what we will find, whether it is the United States, England or most European Union countries, is that Canada's inflation rate is lower.

When the member talks about dealing with inflation, we are dealing with inflation in other legislation. On one of the pieces of legislation, Bill C-30, the member for Abbotsford actually voted in favour. That is dealing with inflation. We are saying we are going to increase the rebate for the GST. That would put cash in 11 million Canadians' pockets. That would put money in our communities, whether it is Abbotsford or Winnipeg North. That would help Canadians in a real and tangible way.

I have to be honest here. To the Conservatives' credit, they did flip-flop. Originally they opposed it, but they did come and support the bill and I am grateful to the Conservative Party for realizing that.

I say that because people could be somewhat encouraged by it. I would like to suggest to the Conservative Party that it do likewise for this bill. If I was to request hands up on the Conservative benches from those MPs who believe that not one of their constituents would benefit from the dental plan and not one of their constituents would benefit from the rent subsidy, they could show me a hand or stand up on a point of order and make that statement, but not one of them will raise a hand.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What member is that? Does anyone know what riding she represents?

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. I just want to remind the hon. members of the rules. When someone is speaking, we respectfully listen and the question and comment period comes after, for both sides.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. The member for Yorkton—Melville actually raised her hand.

I challenge any other member. Are there any other members, outside of the member for Yorkton—Melville, who really believe that there are no benefits for their constituents if this legislation passes? I can understand why that particular member will, in fact, vote against the legislation then.

If Conservatives believe that this is legislation that is going to help their constituents, I would suggest to them that they might want to do what they did on Bill C-30. There is no shame, and I will minimize the mocking.

There is no shame in recognizing, as they did with the GST rebate, that this is a good way to provide support for Canadians from coast to coast, including the residents of Yorkton—Melville. I would include them. I would not write them off as quickly as their local member of Parliament has done on this legislation. Again, this legislation is providing financial support at a time when it is needed, and that is why the Conservatives should revisit their position on it.

We had a member stand up, one who spoke prior to me, and he asked about working with the provinces. What provinces have agreed?

There was a time, and this is hard to believe, in which I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for about 20 years and, for a part of that, I was the health care critic. I can honestly say that, if we were to canvass the provinces, over the last 30-plus years, the one demand they have always had is to give more money. They have always asked for that. There is no change in that.

If the Government of Canada did not take upon itself the responsibility of listening to what Canadians wanted to see, our health care system would be very different. This government has put so much emphasis on mental health, as an example. We just finished going through a pandemic and every member of the Liberal caucus will say that long-term health care conditions are of great concern to all of us, at least to those on this side of the House.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Where are the mental health dollars that have disappeared?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks about mental health dollars. I can tell the House that there have been hundreds of millions of dollars that have come from this government into mental health. That is in comparison to Stephen Harper, from whom there was virtually zero.

For the first time, we have a real, active, lively debate in regard to long-term care. We have a Minister of Seniors who is taking the issues of seniors and bringing them to the floor of the House. How many times have we heard her stand up in question period and talk about all of those wonderful things that we are doing for seniors? She talks about the increases to the GIS, the increases to the OAS for those 75 and above of 10%. All of these measures are helping our seniors.

Conservatives say, “Who is paying for it?” If they do not understand who is paying for it, they need to revisit the role that governments play in society. At the end of the day, I guess I would suggest to members opposite—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am just going to interrupt for a moment. Some people have the ability to engage others so passionately. I just want to remind everyone that there is one person speaking and yelling at each other does not really help things.

His own people are backing him up, so I am not pointing to one side or the other. It is just a certain talent that the hon. member has, and I want everyone to be conscious of that talent.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate your defending my right to be heard inside the chamber. I know that, at times, it can be somewhat of a challenge.

I recognize that we are getting close to having a vote on this and then we are going to start the debate on Bill C-31, which I am hoping to be able to share some comments on in a little bit more detail.

Suffice it to say, it is really important we brought in this motion. This is a good way for me to conclude this. For those people who are watching the debate on Bill C-31 or this particular motion, or those individuals who genuinely care about ensuring that we have a national dental program, something good is happening this evening. It is not about limiting debate. It is about responding to the needs of Canadians. It is about affording the opportunity for us to advance this to the committee stage, where there will be a great deal more discussion and witnesses and so forth.

With that, my final appeal to my Conservative friends and, to a certain degree, my Bloc friends, is that, because we are going to have a vote on this, I would suggest we all vote in favour of it.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 8:04 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 20 now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

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