Debates of Oct. 27th, 2022

Motions in Amendment

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is concerned with policies such as a carbon tax, which only raised gas prices by just over 2¢ a litre this past year while being an efficient tool to address the climate crisis and returning revenue to Canadians.

He is also aware that we are in a climate emergency. Oil and gas company profits were up 18¢ per litre this year alone. Can he talk more about the need to address affordability by addressing the gouging by the oil and gas industry?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the organization or the institution that has been taking excess revenues is the Government of Canada, so perhaps he has gotten that, in fact, wrong. If we look at the oil and gas sector, it contributes, per worker, per hour, $645. For an average Canadian, that figure is $50.

The oil and gas industry is literally fuelling our economy as we go forward. We need to support Canadian energy. The carbon tax is raising costs. I am not sure if he has talked to the residents, but it is making gas unaffordable.

How many emissions targets has the government hit since it has had the carbon tax? Absolutely none. That is an abject failure.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for coming here today to listen to my speech, my colleagues on this side of the House in particular. It is an honour to stand in front of the House and talk about a bill that is going to affect Canadians for a long time going forward, another trinket.

Let me start, because it is a big bill, by focusing my comments on the dental care benefit that is part of this bill, Bill C-31. I see the Liberals over there are shrugging their shoulders about the support they gave the NDP when it brought this legislation forward. They know the support from the NDP, to continue on with its support of the government, came cheap. Dental care is a cheap trinket for them to push forward here.

The House will note that the government has aligned with the NDP, continuing to drip a dental care plan into delivery with its continued deficit. Why would it not? No sooner would the Liberals deliver on their full promise for dental care than the NDP would up its demands for continued support of this spendy government. Who is playing whom in this support agreement? It allows the Liberals to continue to plunge the country into an economic hole, and it will take decades of responsible government to recover our previous fiscal stability.

That is why dental care is in front of the House. It is not for any health reasons and not because it is going to give something to Canadians that has been taken away with the inflation that is making a dent in their take-home pay. It is a political support agreement, so that the NDP can show people that it might be relevant, even though it is backing a government whose spending is out of control. A great amount of taxpayers' money is going to Liberal lackeys.

Dental care support is a nice gift. Like my colleague said earlier, it is a nice shiny trinket in the window. Dental care promotes good health. There is no doubt about it. Oral health leads to better health overall. We have known this for years.

I spoke to a friend at home. She brought it forth to me, asking why the federal government would establish a new federal bureaucracy in charge of Canadians' dental care, and why there is an “Ottawa knows best” approach to superimpose a new federal program on top of the existing provincial dental programs across Canada, because each provincial jurisdiction has a provincial dental care program. She asked how costly the program would be and how much taxpayer funds would be spent, or lost, in bureaucratic overlap. Federal bureaucrats would be interacting needlessly with provincial bureaucrats in a program that is already being delivered in every province across Canada. It would not be a health transfer to fix an underfunded health care system in Canada, but a new program overlap.

Let us ask the NDP about the Halloween candy it has bargained for with the government. It is provincial responsibility. Did any premiers, including the NDP premier in British Columbia, ask for dental care funding in their provinces? The answer is a very clear “no”. What did the premiers ask for? They asked for an extra $26 billion from the federal government to help the strain on our health care system, a strain that has been exacerbated by a pandemic that lasted two years, and to help with costs thrust upon the shoulders of the provincial governments.

Notably, all of this is provincial responsibility. The Canada Health Act imposed standards of health care delivery on the provinces, so it was a shared jurisdiction for a while. Health care was funded fifty-fifty, until the Liberal budget cuts of the mid-1990s, when suddenly it was changed and became not the fifty-fifty that the Health Care Act was premised on. Now, 22% of health care funding in Canada is funded by the federal government, and for every province health care spending has become the largest budget item.

The government has been running huge budget deficits the entire seven years since it was elected, so with this new program it is going to continue to buy Canadians with their own money and continue to put it onto the backs of taxpayers who are not paying taxes today and may not even be born today. This intergenerational transfer of taxation, versus the benefits that are being felt by Canadians today, is unjust.

The country's finances right now are more strained than they have been since the Liberals cut health care funding in the 1990s. Perhaps the NDP needs to take a lesson from history about how this ends.

My friend in Calgary and I did a little more research on dental coverage for people in my province of Alberta. Alberta child care benefits provide full dental coverage for low-income families. There are notable differences between the Alberta plans and the proposed coverage in this bill. The Alberta plan covers low-income households for full coverage up to the age of 18 in low-income families. This new plan would be for low-income families to cover children up to $650 per child up to the age of 12. In Alberta, it is up to the age of 18, no matter the number of children.

Additionally, the definition of low income ends in Alberta at $46,932, again, to cover 100% of the dental expenses of children under the age of 18. This new program would give a sliding amount per family up to a family income of $90,000 down to $260 per child. Will there be overlaps with these different definitions? Yes, of course, and obviously there will be. Private insurance pays out first; provincial insurance on top of that is a close second; and then there is the federal plan. Is this just another public service jobs debacle on the horizon? They are all different formulae and all different eligibilities. This spells huge bureaucratic overlap in the delivery of this new service.

Obviously, we would have to hire more federal government employees on top of the 15% increase we have had over the last two years. We are on a job-hiring spree, and we are getting less and less from federal government services. Surely, a realistic, accountable federal government could deliver a program like this a little more effectively. Unfortunately, a realistic approach to better dental care would not allow the government to buy the support of the NDP. This is another Liberal-NDP boondoggle. Canadians deserve better. They deserve not just optics, but the actual delivery of programs that help them and do not overlap with all their other provincial benefits.

Let us talk about inflation and how this is actually impacted. Every Canadian is having more expenses, including dental expenses, expenses for food, and expenses for housing, which is pronounced and is addressed by a minuscule amount in this bill. These are all mounting expenses for Canadians, and the government has thrust this upon Canadians with its full-on federal spending of over a half a trillion dollars in deficits over the past handful of years. It is a ridiculous financial strategy that has led us to where we are today, with mounting inflation, with mounting government debts and with no insight as to how or where this ends, except on the backs of future generations of Canada.

The cost of living is going up; inflation is going up; deficits are going up, and the government does not have a handle on how it deals with those real problems that are affecting the lives of Canadians. Its approach is to give trinkets. There are trinkets in this bill that would not be able to deliver but would place a huge cost upon the Canadian population writ large.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about trinkets. I can assure the member that not every province is alike. For a 10-year-old child or an 11-year-old or a four-year-old child, depending on the province, there are different types of dental programs that are available. However, what we do know for a fact is that there are tens of thousands of children in every region of the country who will benefit by this dental benefits program.

We know that for a fact, yet the Conservatives seem to want to deny those tens of thousands of children having a dental benefit. We also know for a fact that many of those children will end up in hospital situations as a direct result of not having the types of benefits that are being proposed within this legislation. Will the member at least acknowledge that fact?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I watched my colleague listen to my speech intently, but he seems to have missed much of what I said.

There is definitely dental coverage in every province. However, there is a better way of delivering increased dental coverage if the federal government wants to contribute to the provinces that are actually delivering health care services across this country.

These are different modes. If we think about the way Canada is governed, we are governed in a federal system, and we have provinces deliver real services to their constituents. We, as the federal government, also have our realm. This is very clearly the provincial realm. If the federal government wants to be involved in dental health care, it should say so, put some constraints and direction on the provinces, and transfer some funds. Do not just give it as a gift to the NDP in order to stay in power. It is a really obvious power buy at this point in time.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the speech given by my colleague from Calgary Centre. I really appreciated it, especially when he alluded to health transfers. He also spoke a bit about the various federal and provincial jurisdictions in his response to our friend on the other side of the House.

One thing that disappoints me a little is that I have been asking the Conservatives the same question for three years now, and I have never had an answer. I feel I may have a chance with my friend from Calgary Centre, because he is an honest, reliable person, and I think he will answer my question.

The Premier of Quebec and the provincial premiers all agree. They made a formal request based on a strong consensus. They want health transfers to increase to 35%. I have never heard a Conservative say in the past three years that the Conservatives would agree to increase health transfers to 35%.

As the party that prides itself on having the strongest economic record, would they be willing to put a figure on the increase in health transfers, once and for all? I am asking my friend whether he agrees with Quebec and the provinces that health transfers need to be increased to 35%.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not aware of the 35% that he mentioned in his question.

I do know premiers across the country have been asking the federal government to give the provinces $26 billion a year for Canada's health care system. I am not sure if that $26 billion is equivalent to 35%. I am sorry I am not aware of these figures, but I support the provinces' request for more federal money.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had an adverse reaction to hearing national access to dental care being referred to as a trinket. It is very problematic to me when I hear day in and day out from constituents and Canadians across the country that they want access to dental care. We know that having access to dental care saves us money. There is no economic reason for us not to be proactive in preventing costs to our health care system.

I am wondering if the member could share what he has to say to constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Canadians across the country who are asking for dental care, instead of doing what in my opinion is belittling the need for dental care by referring to it as a trinket.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I called it a trinket in my speech, because it is a little thing for the Liberals to put in the window to show NDP members that they are relevant and should continue to be supported by those members over the short term, until it is actually done.

Giving dental care to Canadians is easy. As I said in my speech, and I hope the member was listening, there is a far more effective way to improve dental care across this country, and that is to transfer health dollars to the provinces, as we have said and as my friend in the Bloc Québécois also answered.

To call it a trinket means they are saying, “Here is something we have given that has to be identified.” It would create a massive overbuild, and more public servants would be required to deliver it. That is the overstep here. It is a provincial responsibility. If the federal government wants to deliver this to the provinces, and if the member actually has her constituents putting it in the top 10 needs of Canadians, then this is the way it should be more effectively done.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter the debate in this place, but I hope you will indulge me for a moment.

I learned just a couple of hours ago that in a small community, one of the many I represent, there was a World War II veteran, the last in that particular community of Coronation, who passed away a number of days ago. As we are approaching Veterans Week and, of course, Remembrance Day, I would like to pay tribute to Wilf Sieger in this place. He died at the ripe age of 99 years old. My thoughts and prayers are with his family. I know he was an active member of the community and passionate about many things, including agriculture and service. I am very thankful to be able to acknowledge him in this place today.

We are debating Bill C-31. I find it very interesting that over the course of the last number of weeks, certainly since Parliament returned in the fall and of course with a new Leader of the Opposition, there has been a dramatic shift in the attitude of the government. I would suspect, based on what I hear from constituents, and I occasionally get feedback from across the country whether it is though travel, friends or people who reach out to my office looking for that common-sense Conservative perspective from areas that are not currently represented by Conservatives, there has been a fairly dramatic shift.

All of a sudden, the economy became a priority. All of a sudden, the cost of living became a priority. All of a sudden, I think, the NDP realized that maybe its not holding true to the democratic part of the party name was coming home to roost in terms of fleeing support. We have seen the consequences of that in the legislative agenda.

I find it continually ironic that the Liberals especially, but we are hearing it equally from their coalition partners in the NDP, are quick to say that our doing our jobs in this place is somehow not what Canadians want us to do. When it comes to many issues, virtually everything that we are debating here today but also over the last number of weeks, these are all the priorities and the things that Conservatives have been talking about for months.

I find it very interesting when it comes to the inflation. That was not a big deal up until the new Leader of the Opposition was pushing it as an issue on the national stage. Now, of course, we are seeing the devastating consequences of that.

When it comes to the issues surrounding health care, that is where there is going to be a very close connection that I will get to here in a moment. When it comes to making sure that the federal government is seen as a partner, not an overlord but a partner, with the provinces. We just have not seen that and not only over the past number of years. In the last seven years, we have seen a true erosion of what I believe and what constitutional experts suggest our federation should be.

When it comes to the issue of housing, Conservatives have been talking about this for a long time. I was sent a meme recently of a reference to our country. It was a picture in front of a dumpster fire. If we look at passport offices, Canadian unity or any host of metrics, service delivery to Canadians or whatever the case is, in so many ways we see that Canada is broken. It is unfortunate. I believe, and I say it often, that we are blessed to be Canadian. It is the greatest country in the world, but over the last seven years, and especially as we have seen an unprecedented crisis over the last number of years, certainly since I have been elected, we have seen so many things erode.

When it comes to Bill C-31, we see something that is very troubling, and it is a continuation of an attitude. I even asked a question on this of the parliamentary secretary earlier today. It is a continuation of the idea that Ottawa knows best. It is the Liberal government suggesting that its will should be imposed on every other level of government in this place.

I would like to unpack that a little with respect to why it is so problematic.

The true essence of our federation is that we have a national government based here in Ottawa, but there has to be strong regional governments. The approach is not one of overlordship. We have seen numerous case precedents in the Supreme Court. We have seen the very clear constitutionality of having, in our case, provinces. Different federal systems around the world call them different things, but in our case, the provinces need to be respected. However, we do not see that. When I asked a question of the parliamentary secretary earlier today, he said that he was willing to be criticized for telling the provinces what they should or should not do.

Here is why that is problematic. The Liberals, from the position of being the national government in Ottawa and a minority government, one which, I would remind them as they seem to have forgotten, received fewer votes than the Conservatives, but legitimately won the most number of seats of any other political party, are unwilling to acknowledge there has to be an ability to work together whether they agree with their provincial counterparts or not. That is key because we see how in our country the Liberals only want to dance with those they agree with. That is not how our federation is supposed to work, and we see the consequences of that, whether through this bill or so many other aspects of the way the current Liberals approach governing here in Ottawa. The result is poor outcomes for Canadians. The result is a dental program that is being proposed but that is not going to have the intended effect.

In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer unpacked some of these things, and the PBO's numbers are different from those of the Liberal government. There is this weird political dynamic within the coalition partners to try to get something across the finish line so they can point to it and say they won, when the reality is that had they taken the work of governing seriously we would be in a very different situation. Therefore, I think the overall attitude we are seeing that has led to Bill C-31 before us is very problematic.

I will reference another bill that the Conservatives actually supported, Bill C-30. We supported sending a few dollars back to Canadians who are facing immense challenges from the inflationary pressures they face. However, what the Liberals failed to acknowledge, let alone give credit to, is that the Conservatives proposed measures that were not all that different with respect to cuts and removing some of the taxes on products and commodities that were facing significant increases in price. We have been proposing those things for many months, but now all of a sudden because, I hope, the Liberals listened to their constituents, although sometimes it seems that may not be the case with some of the Liberal constituents who have reached out to me and some of my colleagues, they finally decided to act many months after the Conservatives made the suggestion.

I will close with this. I think we have a troubling precedent within the governance of our country that has resulted in poor outcomes for Canadians. Canadians are struggling to get ahead. They are feeling left behind. A patchwork of federal programs implemented without appropriate consultation and without a true acknowledgement of the pressures and challenges Canadians are facing may make good headlines today, but the question I urge every member of this place to ask is whether it will solve the problems of tomorrow.

There is one further comment I would like to make. It is more of an open question. Yesterday in question period, the Minister of Health referenced a 10% increase coming to the Canada health transfer. I believe that is something that needs to be stated again in this place to try to get some clarification as to whether it is an Ottawa imposition or whatever the plan is, and what that actually means for our nation's future and, specifically, our publicly funded health care.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member made reference to Bill C-30. It kind of goes hand in hand with Bill C-31. Both of them deal with the issue of inflation. The member said the Conservative Party voted in favour of it. Yes, the Conservative Party voted in favour of it. The member then went on to say that they were encouraging it and tried to take credit for it.

I need to remind the member that the Conservative Party of Canada, which he is a member of, initially did not support Bill C-30. It was not until days later, after being shamed into it, that it changed its position and supported Bill C-30. Recognizing that Bill C-30 is the one that he just said was a good bill, Bill C-31 is also a good bill.

Does he believe that the Conservative Party could be shamed into supporting Bill C-31, as was done with Bill C-30?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the revisionist history that often comes about really interesting, and I will get into another example of that in a minute. The member knows full well that Conservatives were not shamed into supporting that bill. Rather, it was the Liberals who refused to support Conservative initiatives months ago that would have given the needed relief to Canadians.

In fact, that member is dishonest at best, and there is an unparliamentary word I would use to describe what he is doing.

Here is the reality. We see, time and time again, the Liberals pivot away from their record and are quick to blame, whether it is Conservatives or anybody else. In fact, when there were lineups at airports, who did they blame? They blamed Canadians for not remembering how to go through security.

Time and time again, we see the Liberals equivocate, pivot and endeavour to deflect the blame. As the Leader of the Opposition stated yesterday, the arsonists are trying to claim that they will fight the fire, when they were the ones who started it in the first place.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on delivering a passionate speech, as always. I asked his other colleague a question earlier, and I am going to ask him the same one now. I may be naive, but I hope to get a good answer eventually.

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot may agree with me. A number of the Liberal government's new programs encroach on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, especially in health and dental care, as in Bill C‑31. The subject of mental health came up earlier. Once again, the Conservatives seem particularly concerned about mental health.

Would it not be easier to do what the provinces and Quebec have been calling for unanimously for years, which is to significantly increase health transfers to 35% so the provinces and Quebec can provide mental health and dental care, which are provincial responsibilities?

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, mental health is a clear example of where the Liberals have dropped the ball. In fact, it was only partway through the last election campaign that, all of a sudden, they added that as part of their priorities.

I suggest that it was because Conservatives had been championing that issue, even though it was an unnecessary election and all of these things. Conservatives were championing that issue because it is something that Canadians should be able to find common ground on, but instead of acting, they dither, delay and simply fail to deliver.

As for respecting provinces, absolutely, we need to get back to the point where our federation respects regional differences and provincial jurisdiction.

I encourage the member from the Bloc to ask the same question that I did at the conclusion of my speech. What is the deal with the health minister, all of a sudden, in question period, saying that a 10% increase is coming to the Canada health transfer?

Certainly, there are a lot of unanswered questions in association with that statement, which may have slipped out of the minister's mouth in question period yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I commend the member on highlighting the work and perseverance of the NDP, which has forced Liberals to finally do what is right and move forward with a national dental care plan. I feel that the member, perhaps, is a little upset that the Conservative-Liberal coalition that existed just a year ago, which voted down dental care, has clearly broken up and here we are today. I do agree that there is currently a patchwork approach in place that is leaving so many Canadians behind in accessing dental care.

Can the member share why he is opposed to a national approach, with the leadership that we need, so that all Canadians have head-to-toe health care, including dental care?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating how the fourth party in this place is quick to suggest that somehow it is forcing the government to do anything when this is the reality. We see weak leadership, certainly from the Liberals and the NDP, and an unwillingness to do the hard work that Canadians expect of them.

My suggestion for the member and the NDP is that if they really want to do the hard work that Canadians require, to work in the context that our country was meant to function in, they would work with provinces and ensure we have programs that actually deliver services to Canadians.

I know I am out of time, but there are so many things that require hard work and the laziness demonstrated by the coalition is inhibiting that from taking place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will make my normal daily public service announcement that the shorter the questions and answers, more people get to participate in these great debates.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to talk about budgetary measures and legislation that will really have an impact on the lives of Canadians in all regions of our country.

We talk a lot about inflation, and there are a couple things I would like to convey right at the beginning.

First, we have to be honest with Canadians and tell them exactly what the situation is. When we compare Canada to the rest of in the world, much like the pandemic, we are not immune to inflation. We had a worldwide pandemic and have worldwide inflation. How does Canada compare to other countries, like the United States, our greatest trading partner, Europe or England? Canada compares relatively well. Our inflation rate has been consistently lower than those countries. It does not mean we do not have an inflation issue.

We hear it every week within our caucus and every day in our constituencies. As the Prime Minister has indicated not only to Liberals but to all members, our responsibility within our constituencies is to take those ideas and concerns and bring them to Ottawa. Liberal members of Parliament do that on a regular basis. As a result, what we see is a government that is trying to deal with the issue of inflation.

That brings me to my second point on inflation. It is not good enough for us to say that because Canada is doing relatively well compared to other countries in the world that we do not need to do more. We are committed to providing relief where we can.

I made reference to this in a question to the previous speaker. Bill C-31 complements other pieces of legislation, in particular Bill C-30. Bill C-30 provided a doubling of the GST tax credit. That has impacted over 11 million Canadians. Our population is about 38 million and 11 million Canadians have benefited from it. That is money in their pockets as a direct result of the House of Commons ultimately passing the bill.

Contrary to what some of my Conservative friends will try to tell everyone, they initially opposed that legislation. To their credit, they did come onside and support it because they recognized that Canadians would benefit from it.

The challenge we have before us now is saying to the Conservatives that Bill C-31, like Bill C-30, is good, substantial legislation that will help the constituents we serve.

When we think of inflation, we talk about going to the grocery store and the cost of food. It is going to places where we have to purchase commodities and widgets. Those are real dollars that need to be spent. Canadians are concerned about that and we should be as well.

When we talk about children in our communities who do not have the financial means to get critical dental care, this legislation deals with that in good part. We have a national government that wants to provide direct support for children under the age of 12 so they can get dental care, children who might otherwise not receive it. As a direct result of not receiving that dental care, they could end up in our hospitals.

We can check with the children's hospitals and community hospitals. We will find that children are going to these health care facilities virtually everyday because they have been unable to have their dental issues addressed.

I applaud the New Democrat members in recognizing and prioritizing this issue. It complements our health care system.

However, I am not surprised by the Bloc member, because they want Canada to break apart. They are separatists, and they do not believe in national programs. On the other hand, members of the Conservative Party, a national party, not supporting what our constituents want is so out of touch with Canadians if they believe the federal government has no role to play in health care. Every one of them is out of touch with reality with respect to what their constituents want. Their constituents not only want but demand that the national government play a role in health care. We see that in our Health Care Act.

Talking about long-term care, have the Conservatives not learned anything from the pandemic when it comes to health care? Do they not realize that Canadians expect issues like long-term care to have national standards? Do they not recognize that Canadians want a national government to invest in mental health? Some members of the Conservative Party have said maybe not for dental care but more for mental health. Therefore, some of those members seem to acknowledge that the federal government should play a role in mental health, but they are definitely not consistent. We, on the other hand, recognize that Canadians want leadership on the health care file, and that is what they will get from this government.

We get misinformation from across the way when those members say that the federal government provides 22% funding. I used to be a provincial health care critic during the 1990s, and that is just wrong. In fact, the history of health care funding goes back to when there was a tax point transfer given to provinces as a compromise, which saw the percentages go down, and, yes, there was somewhat of a cut in the 1990s. However, there was also a guarantee of ongoing national involvement in cash transfers or equalization payments as we call them today. However, this government has not only invested historical amounts of money into health care transfers, but we have also invested in long-term care, mental health, and today we are making a commitment to dental health.

Today we are talking about children. Tomorrow we are going to be talking about seniors and people with disabilities, recognizing that there is a need. At the same time, it would help with the issue of inflation. Bill C-31 might get a lot of attention with respect to the dental program, but where the Conservatives are losing it, once again, is on the rental support of millions of dollars. Close to two million people will benefit from this. A substantial amount of money will go to low-income families and individuals in rental support. One would think this is something the Conservatives would want to support.

When the Conservatives talk about fighting inflation and helping Canadians through inflation, not only does the doubling of the GST credit assist but so will Bill C-31. For my Conservative friends, because I anticipate there will be a recorded vote on this, I suggest that they reflect on whether they have constituents and children under the age of 12 in their ridings who would benefit by the passing of this bill. Do they have tenants in their ridings who would benefit by the passage of this bill? The short answer is, they do. Hopefully they will flip-flop and support the bill.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep this very simple for the member.

I just heard that the committee spent two hours on this. I am wondering if the hon. member could share with me if the federal government actually worked with the Canadian Dental Association and worked with the provinces and territories. The feedback I am getting is that they do not like where this is coming from. The Canadian Dental Association has asked for an extension of the programs that already exist in our communities. I am wondering what the government did to consult with these organizations that are providing dental health.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the nice thing about this. Here we have a plan that is being put into place, and we have indicated to the provinces that we want to see it expanded.

Ultimately, the provinces could come onside and start the discussions, or work with the federal government on how to have an optimal dental program for all of Canadians so there is a standard. For a child under 12, it should not matter what province they happen to live in when we determine what kind of benefits they will have. This ensures that all children under the age of 12 will have at least some dental benefit so they can get critical dental work done.

If every province has not been contacted, the nice thing about the telephone is that it works two ways. I suspect that everyone is very much aware that the NDP and the Liberals have been pushing on this issue for a while now.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that some colleagues are laughing. It is true that it can be rather funny to listen to the parliamentary secretary. He is presenting this as a dental care plan when it is not a dental care plan or program in the least. It is a cheque that will be sent to people without any real proof as to whether the children went to the dentist.

The only thing I want to know is whether there will be two logos on the cheque, the maple leaf and the NDP logo, because it is not a dental care program. It is a subsidy that is being distributed unequally among the provinces.

By the way, we are not against national programs. We are in favour of national programs that have to do with Canada but that the government is not taking care of. That is the reality.

The Bloc Québécois is against discrimination, against interference in Quebec's jurisdiction, against people not having access to the dental care program, but getting cheques anyway in a discriminatory way.

This is my question for the parliamentary secretary: Was it a kick in the teeth to have to make a presentation like that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc party does not support this program because it is a separatist party. If it was up to the Bloc party, Ottawa would be nothing more than an ATM machine.

At the end of the day, I believe there are children, no matter where they live in Canada and even in the member's constituency, who could benefit from this program. There are parties that support the idea of having a national program for children under the age of 12, which will be expanded. That is good for all Canadians, no matter where they live in the country and no matter where they decide to move to or from.

I see that as a positive thing, but I am a nationalist; I am not a separatist. As for the NDP, at least the NDP seems to have outmanoeuvred the Bloc by becoming more relevant in terms of national policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Liberals are finally listening to the NDP and ensuring that no child will go without getting their teeth fixed and that everybody who needs help will eventually have dental care and get the lift they need. I also appreciate the top-up for housing. However, it is not enough.

We know that over 20% of housing in Canada is owned by corporations. Does my colleague agree that we need to put a stop to the corporatization of home ownership in our country? Housing is a human right, and it should be for people to live in and for people to own themselves, not for corporations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the only way we are going to deal with the housing crisis is to get all three levels of government to work together, with the national government playing a lead role. We cannot underestimate the importance of local councils, whether in big cities or small rural municipalities. They have to be engaged. There are a lot of ideas out there, and we have a Minister of Housing who is committed to working with all the different stakeholders to try to ensure that Canadians have the ability to own a home.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We did not do as well as I thought we would in the last round to make sure that everybody gets to participate in the debate. The questions and the answers were long, and I see that a number of people who really wanted to participate had their hand up. Let us try our best to make sure that everybody gets to participate in this debate.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.