Debates of Oct. 18th, 2022

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, we should all commend the member for asking for additional time to study this bill. That is exactly what we are going to do at committee, which is where members of the House can spend more time and energy in the appropriate setting, asking for experts and other stakeholders to come to the committee so they can ask questions and get answers.

This is where we want to go next, because, as the member knows, we need more time to take action in delivering dental care and rental supports for low-income and middle-income families.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is going to use the exact same process to disburse payments to receiving individuals as it did with CERB, using the CRA to disburse the payments.

Will the minister say on the record whether he believes in the process that the government has set up? Is it a good process, is it the one it intends to use, and does he stand by that process?

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

Madam Speaker, there are two things: first, the process, and second, the outcomes.

This is the right process to proceed quickly to deliver better dental care for children.

On the outcome, about two million school days are missed by children every year because they need to go for emergency dental care. This is time wasted, obviously, for children. It is also an important burden for families. We need to do better. When children get sick, it is bad for their health and it is also bad for their long-term development, socially and health-wise, especially when they miss days at school.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know our health care system is fractured. We do not truly have a head-to-toe health care system. It stops here. We know dental care is finally coming in to ensure that people get access to dental care.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

How is the NDP in B.C. doing it, then?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is because of the NDP, absolutely, to my colleague who is heckling me. We are making sure we have pharmacare so that people who do not have private insurance can access the medicine they need when they need it. Also, when it comes to mental health, we need parity. Mental health is health.

Does the minister not agree that we do not have parity between mental and physical health in this country and that we need legislation so we can make sure there is truly parity between mental and physical health?

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

Madam Speaker, we all agree that mental health is health, and mental health care is health care. That is exactly what we should all recognize. We fully support the views of the member that we need to invest more in better health care and better mental health care.

I would like to point out, in addition to what the member said on dental care, that approximately one family out of three in Canada does not have access to dental insurance. That explains, in large part, why many of those families and children do not get appropriate, accessible and affordable dental care.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing this debate.

However, I do question the timing of this announcement, which was made in the middle of Quebec's election campaign, when seniors' groups were making their demands known to the Quebec government.

The government announced dental care funding, but groups like Réseau FADOQ responded that this was not what they were expecting from the federal government. They are asking for health transfers to increase to 35%. Their request was for the government in Quebec.

They understood that. When will the government understand it?

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

Madam Speaker, I am certain, because I know the member well, that she also knows what it is like for seniors to take care of their general health, whether we are talking about seniors in long-term care facilities, in residences or every senior who has difficulty affording dignified dental care.

I am sure the member also agrees with everyone in the House that taking care of seniors is also important.

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

Madam Speaker, $10 billion is the number that we need to understand very clearly in the House that this bill is going to cost Canadians.

We also understand that perhaps what the minister is saying could be nuanced a bit in the sense that 11 of 13 jurisdictions have dental programs at the current time for low-income and special needs children. There is also the NIHB program.

Perhaps the minister would want to nuance what he has said around that a bit. However, $10 billion is the real reason we should not have closure on this bill. We should have very robust and open debate with respect to how we spend Canadians' money.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, because I do not think I have done that yet, on his appointment as my critic. We are going to be working together to support health and the appropriate health care of Canadian citizens.

Let me once again point out that about 4% of total dental care expenditures are currently covered by provinces and territories, and 40% by citizens. Approximately 33% of families with children do not go to see a dentist every year because they are afraid of the cost that it would involve for their families. This is very concerning, obviously, because of the severe impact it has on the mental and physical health of all those children and families.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts on the importance of passing the legislation in a timely fashion, so that what is being resourced here can actually be delivered, given the importance of getting this money into the pockets of Canadians who need it in order to guarantee that dental service.

If it was up to the Conservative Party, without this time allocation we would likely not see the legislation pass this year. Therefore, the government, working with the NDP, has come to an agreement that would ultimately see these benefits being delivered. Could the minister provide his thoughts on the timing of the passage of this bill and how important that is?

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

Madam Speaker, it is all right for people to not always agree on every bill. It is perfectly fine in a democracy. However, it would be unfortunate if, just because some members in the House do not like or do not approve of a particular bill, the majority of the members of this House could not vote in favour of it and move forward towards delivering the types of services my colleague has already mentioned.

We want to move ahead. I mentioned $2 billion as being the cost of emergency hospital costs because people did not have access to preventive dental care and instead ended up in a hospital for the types of services that would not have been needed had they had access to appropriate affordable dental care.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate joining the debate.

I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan for eight years before I was able to have the honour of this job. We dealt a lot with health and dental care, and I know there are jurisdictions across the country that have dental programs in place for low-income families and for children with disabilities.

Could the minister please outline how many of the provinces asked for this program? I know the health ministers meet at federal-provincial-territorial meetings. How many of the provincial health ministers had this dental program as their top ask or their top priority, consulting within their jurisdictions or with their partners?

I would really like to hear that answer, and I would appreciate it if the minister could talk about the consultations he had with health ministers for this program.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleagues are as knowledgeable as we are. The $2 billion I just mentioned earlier are costs that provinces and territories need to pay because of the need to hospitalize people, children in particular, who do not have access to good-quality, preventative dental care. These are big costs that provinces and territories need to incur. More importantly, these are severe health costs that families and children need to bear because they do not have access to affordable quality dental care.

We are working together, complementing each other, supporting their efforts and adding to those efforts the fact that we are going to support about 500,000 children with this particular bill and support families with children and all those who care for those people in the current system.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the underlying premise of Bill C-31 is an assumption that the government is even capable of delivering a $10-billion program, yet its record in government is appalling when we think of the mess it made of passports, when we think of the mess it made of ArriveCAN, when we think of the mess it made with the Canada Infrastructure Bank and even with the delivery of the CERB program.

What makes the minister think that he and his government can actually deliver a $10-billion national dental care program in a coherent and accountable way?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is experienced enough to know that this is indeed ambitious, but it is necessary. As we have said, this is going to help about seven million Canadians who currently do not go to see a dentist or dental hygienist because they just cannot afford the dental care they need. What do they do? They wait until their oral health has become very bad, and then they end up in a hospital, with all of the physical, mental and social difficulties that come with ending up in a hospital, as opposed to going and seeing a dentist, with the diagnostics, treatments and preventative services that I think all families and children need in this particular country.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, during the 2015 campaign, the Liberal Party promised to uphold the standing committees' independence, but today's motion regarding Government Business No. 20 flies in the face of that principle of independence, in particular subparagraph (c)(ii), where the government says, “amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2022, and distributed to the committee members in both official languages by noon on Friday, October 21, 2022”.

Why is the government shutting down debate in the House? Why is the government—

[An hon. member]

Interfering.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Why is it interfering in the committee's debate?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Everyone knows we do not provide that kind of help in the House.

The hon. minister.

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

Madam Speaker, our colleague's French was already fantastic, but with a bit of help, it is even better. His question was excellent. He is a man of principle and he mentioned the word “principle”. We are at second reading. This is when we look at the principle of the bill. We then go to committee to determine whether the provisions of the bill allow us to achieve that principle. We need to vote on the principle now to be able to move on to the important detailed study of this bill, which we look forward to doing in committee, obviously within an independent framework, because committees remain independent in their work.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have great concerns about the fact that we are not continuing this conversation in the House. When we look at the various scenarios where we have a lot of apprehension about the way the government has managed to bring its programs forward, I have concerns.

I hear all the time from my constituents that the Liberals put these programs out there, but they do not put the meat on the bones before they present it in this place. That is my concern. When we are talking about that kind of money, are we going to be in a circumstance like we were with CERB, where they just shut off all the checks and balances and let people apply, and then, after the fact, try to deal with the challenges? I understand that there probably are some young people falling through the cracks, but to have the federal government engaging in this way is very concerning.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague speaks about her concerns, and she can legitimately have concerns. Those concerns, indeed, need to be addressed by the committee. She also mentioned meat on the bone. Meat on the bone is what the committee will need to do very soon, hopefully, looking at each clause to make sure it is best suited to support the principles defended by this bill at second reading.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had a meeting this morning with representatives from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. They raised a concern about the government introducing an alternative to dental insurance. A lot of companies, particularly SMEs, will withdraw from group insurance programs. That could have major consequences for access to several types of insurance that are not limited to dental insurance. Access to such insurance is a major competitive advantage for employees and employers.

If government dental insurance is imposed, our businesses may no longer have access to insurance plans. Has the minister considered this possibility?