House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Public Accounts of CanadaRoutine Proceedings

October 27th, 2022 / 10:05 a.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mona Fortier LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the 2022 Public Accounts of Canada. The Auditor General of Canada has provided an unqualified audit opinion on the Canadian government's financial statements.

Auditor General of CanadaRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 8(2) of the Auditor General Act, a report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons entitled “Commentary on the 2021-2022 Financial Audits”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

International TradeCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the honour to present, on behalf of the international trade committee and in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, entitled “Canada–United States Relationship and its Impacts on the Electric Vehicle, Softwood Lumber and Other Sectors”.

Canada Labour CodeRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to introduce this bill that is so important to NDP supporters. The NDP has always been the party for workers.

There has been a flaw in the Canada Labour Code for years. It does not ban the use of replacement workers during a labour dispute. That upsets the balance of power to the detriment of workers.

This is not the first time the NDP has introduced such a bill. My former colleague Karine Trudel introduced similar legislation in 2016, and Scott Duvall did the same in 2019.

I am extremely pleased to introduce this bill so that we can have a robust and up-to-date Canada Labour Code that protects the rights of workers in the case of a labour dispute by preventing the use of replacement workers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

TaxationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to present this petition on behalf of the hundreds of York—Simcoe residents who have signed it.

Whereas high inflation rates are driving up the cost of living for all Canadians, the price of gasoline and diesel is hitting record highs across Canada, making it more expensive for Canadians to get to work, transport goods and live their everyday lives. The Government of Canada has continued to make significant revenue from high fuel costs, far exceeding what would have been projected. The petitioners call upon the government to suspend the GST on gasoline and diesel and suspend the carbon tax.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-31. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-31, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by replacing line 17 on page 18 with the following: vices, only 90% of the payment is to be taken into account

(b) replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 18 with the following: purposes of paragraph (1)(g) is the total amount of rent paid in 2022 by the applicant.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-31, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by replacing line 17 on page 18 with the following: vices, only 90% of the payment is to be taken into account

(b) replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 18 with the following: purposes of paragraph (1)(g) is the total amount of rent paid in 2022 by the applicant.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to kick off the debate on the report stage of Bill C-31, the cost of living relief act, no. 2.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Health, I had the honour to preside over five hours of meetings on Monday. We heard from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion for a couple of hours, and then spent three hours considering amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. That brings us to where we are today.

I intend to begin by providing some insight as to how this will impact the people of the good riding that I am proud to represent, Charlottetown. Plainly put, it costs more to live in Canada, and Bill C-31 addresses this problem and will help millions of Canadians.

According to the 2021 census, the median household income in Canada was $84,000, but when we look at the riding I represent, the median household income in 2021 was just $58,000. That is $26,000 less than the Canadian median income, or 31% less than the rest of Canada.

While Charlottetown households have substantially less money to support their families and pay their bills compared to those nationally, P.E.I. is leading the country in the increased cost of living. There are some things in Prince Edward Island that we are proud to lead the country in. Over the last couple of years, we have led the country in per capita population growth, among other things, but leading the country in the inflation rate is not particularly a badge of honour.

In May of this year, inflation hit 11.1% in P.E.I., the highest in the country. In fact, we have had the highest inflation rate in the country every month since March 2021. Imagine the average Charlottetown family, with a household income of $58,000, trying to absorb the costs of the worst inflation in the country. When we talk about the cost of living, these numbers reflect where the people of Charlottetown are and demonstrate the direct impact Bill C-31 would have in addressing those increasing costs.

Allow me to begin with the rental housing benefit in Bill C-31. This act proposes a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This is a $1.2-billion addition to the existing $4-billion Canada housing benefit.

There is no doubt the rising cost of housing is an issue from coast to coast to coast, from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, to Victoria, British Columbia, and everywhere in between in this country. It is also particularly acute in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. In April of this year, P.E.I.'s annual inflation rate for rented accommodation was 15.3%. Compare this to the national inflation rate for rental accommodations, at 4.2%.

Let us look at the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment. Nationally, it costs $1,167. In Charlottetown, it costs $1,055. Charlottetown renters are paying national prices with $26,000 less in income. Furthermore, not only is renting more expensive, but it is also harder to find somewhere at any price. If someone was trying to rent in Charlottetown today, they would be contending with a 1.5% vacancy rate. That is less than half the national average.

What do these numbers tell us? Charlottetown renters are paying more, are finding less and need support now. That is why Bill C-31 is so important. Specifically, this bill would put $500 more in the pockets of the same Canadians who are struggling to pay for rent, like those in Charlottetown.

We know that Canadians need help today, which is why we are not reinventing the wheel on this. Bill C-31 is a top-up on existing housing support, the $4-billion Canada housing benefit. This will cut down on administrative barriers and save time between money going out the door and getting into the pockets of Canadians to help pay for housing.

One critique that is often repeated in the House is that it is not enough and, because of that, one certain party is not supportive of the bill.

First, the $500 top-up is in addition to existing supports under the $4-billion Canada housing benefit to ensure that Canadians can pay for housing, which is on average $2,500 in direct financial support.

Second, to not support the bill, because some members say it is not enough, is quite frankly an insult to the very same Canadians who need the additional $500 top-up today in regions where incomes and vacancy rates are lower and inflation is higher, like in Charlottetown.

Housing is not the only area where people need financial support. Dental care is financially inaccessible to many low- and middle-income families in this country. Right now, Canadians are falling through the cracks trying to access dental care. Bill C-31 is a solution to close that gap through the dental benefit act. Specifically, this benefit will provide $1,300 per eligible child over two years. It will be targeted for uninsured Canadians with a family income of less than $90,000 annually, for their children under 12 years old, which is most of the families in the riding I represent.

Regardless of family income, location or employment, Bill C-31 will provide financial support for those under 12 years of age to ensure access to dental care in this country.

Income is one determining factor to whether Canadians can access dental care. We know that one in five Canadians are not receiving needed dental care due to cost. This means that seven million Canadians, because of their income, cannot get the basic dental care they need.

Employment is another determining factor with respect to access to dental care. It is true that 55% of dental care services are paid by private insurance through employers. While this provides financial support to pay for dental care services for many Canadians, 45% of Canadians do not have that option. Employment status should not determine whether an individual can afford dental services.

Finally, location has increasingly become a deciding factor regarding which Canadians get dental care and which do not. Some provinces have made strides to publicly fund dental care programs, such as for low-income families. For example, Prince Edward Island, home to my riding of Charlottetown, has a provincial dental care program that provides a sliding scale coverage for low-income families and seniors based on family size, income and other criteria. More than 15,000 Islanders, less than 10% of the population, have applied to use this program. While programs like these have been useful, not all provinces or territories have them, creating an inconsistency of access across the country. That is where the Government of Canada must and will step in to create consistency of access coast to coast to coast.

This is one step of many to come. This new benefit is a bridge to a long-term goal of dental care for all Canadians. We are starting with children first to address current issues and alleviate long-term oral health problems. An estimated 2.26 million school days each year are lost due to dental-related illness.

Increased costs have meant Canadians are making tough decisions, such as choosing between food on the table and dental care. Increased costs have meant paying out of budget rent prices to simply keep a roof over their heads. Bill C-31 does not fix all affordability issues, but tangibly targets key areas to put money directly into people's pockets where they need it. That is why I urge my colleagues to continue to support Bill C-31.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Madam Speaker, the member from Prince Edward Island went to great lengths in his speech this morning to describe how Islanders are paying so much more and receiving so much less from the current government.

Has the member ever spoken out publicly about the costly NDP-Liberal coalition and the homegrown inflation caused by their reckless spending habits and policies? Is he another Liberal MP unable to speak out on behalf of his constituents, who are having to pay more and receive less from the government he is a part of?

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question, because it gives me a chance to address the fallacy that has been created by the Conservative Party that inflation in this country is something that exists only in this country, which is patently untrue.

Inflation is a worldwide phenomenon, and Canada is faring significantly better than the other G7 countries. I would be most interested in hearing from the party opposite about which of the measures we put in place to help Canadians through the pandemic that they would have cut.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:20 a.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to know how my colleague feels. Bill C-31 provides for a $500 rent assistance cheque, but it excludes 87,000 people who live in social housing. We are talking about seniors, women who are victims of domestic violence, people with mental health issues. These people are totally excluded from Bill C-31. We have tried to get them to drop the 30% requirement so that these people can receive this cheque.

I would like to know how my colleague feels about the fact that this money will not be sent to very vulnerable people in Quebec.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Madam Speaker, as part of this bill, we have developed a program to help the most vulnerable. We have also created rules to get this assistance out to the most vulnerable as quickly as possible. We want it to be more efficient. It is very important to consider the urgency of this situation. That is exactly what we have done.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, the member rightfully points out that housing costs are very expensive now for Canadians and in fact have been for some time. Many Canadians find themselves in the situation where they cannot find secure, safe and affordable housing. The $500 one-time benefit is something that the NDP absolutely supports and has pushed the government to go forward with, and we are pleased about that.

Regarding the ultimate goal of ensuring that housing is in fact a basic human right, which the government agrees with in the national housing strategy, would the member then support action in the upcoming fall economic statement and budget to reflect that, with resources and investments in affordable housing and co-op housing?

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the very constructive role she played at the health committee to present amendments that would improve this bill.

The $72-billion national housing strategy has been critically important in increasing the housing stock in Charlottetown and right across the country, without a doubt. Her direct question was whether I would support further investments in the upcoming fall economic statement. The answer is unequivocally yes.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:20 a.m.

Green

Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Charlottetown pointed out in his speech how house prices and rents are far outpacing any wage gains. Kitchener renters need support just as much as Charlottetown renters. It is why I will support the measures in this bill. We also have to recognize that a one-time $500 benefit is a drop in the bucket.

Does the member for Charlottetown agree that more needs to be done to ensure that homes are places that people live and not simply investments for corporate investors to trade, for example, by removing—

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:25 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I thought the member was ending there, but I will have to cut him off.

The hon. member for Charlottetown, a brief answer, please.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Madam Speaker, the brief answer is yes. Homes should not be used as a financial tool, especially given the condition of the market at the present time. The government has taken substantial steps in this regard. In terms of housing for the most vulnerable, probably the most effective program has been the rapid housing initiative, something that we have seen with results on the ground.

There is absolutely no question the member makes a fair point. We need more of that.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise here in the House of Commons to debate legislation. I have reflected upon this bill. We had time to see it in committee, though very little time I might add. We had little time with stakeholders and very little time in front of ministers to debate this bill, which is, sadly, a gateway to spending $11 billion of taxpayer money.

For that fact, here in the House, having a motion to end debate on this bill very quickly and have it rammed through is a difficulty. That is the same experience that we had in committee. I am unsure why there is an urgency with this bill, other than it really panders to the political aspirations of those across the aisle and their costly coalition dance partners, which, as I mentioned, will jack up the costs for all Canadians as we move forward.

Everybody in the House wants to have their sound bites and their clips for social media. All that type of stuff is potentially important. What I am going to say, I know, will be taken out of context and that is why it is important to preface it in that sense.

There is not a dental crisis in the country. There is no reason we had to run this bill through in this warp-speed manner and try to ram it down the throats of those of us who would suspect we need much more prudence in how we approach spending money in this House and exactly where we spend it, which is important. It would have been much nicer if this were a mental health and rental bill as opposed to the dental health and rental bill. Why would that be more important? We know, and everyone in the House can attest to it, that there is a mental health crisis in this country that is not being addressed and that is the darn shame of it all. This is about where we choose to spend our money in the House, and the difficulty is that we do not have unlimited amounts.

I always liken this to my own finances. When there are urgencies, when the roof is off the house, people have to put the roof on before they put the front step on. Sure, they are both absolutely important, but we have to look at priorities. We have to understand that a roof on the house is, sadly, more important than the front step. Do we need them both? Yes, we do.

That being said, there is a mental health crisis in this country. One in three Canadians throughout their lifetime will have significant problems with their mental health. We see it in the news every day. We see it from our loved ones every day. We know that the government is not funding mental health. It is an odd fact that the commitment the Liberal government made in its 2021 platform with respect to mental health has not been spent or committed to in its current budget. That is a huge difficulty. The irony is not lost that the cost of that Canada mental health transfer would be about $875 million. When we look at the costs in this bill, the exact amount is very ironic. This money could have been spent on the Canada mental health transfer, which would have done so much for Canadians who are in that significant crisis.

We need to look further at all of those things that we hold very dear here in Canada, and one of those things is people's access to our great Canadian health care system. From the president of the Canadian Medical Association, we know that this system is on the brink of collapse. It too is in crisis. It is a catastrophe. It is a disaster and, sadly, any other negative superlatives that I could come up with.

We know that in my home province alone, 100,000 people, or 10% of the population of Nova Scotia, do not have access to primary care. The sad fact is that we also know, when people do not have access to primary care in Canada, it becomes very difficult to access care for mental health. Further to that, we know that there are approximately one million people in Ontario who do not have access to primary care. Therefore, is there a crisis out there? Yes, there is.

I know that my words will be taken out of context and misconstrued; however, that being said, there is a crisis. It is not in dental health care. It is in mental health care and in the health care system in general. I would be so bold as to say that, if we wanted to ask Canadians how we should spend their money, I would suspect that they would say to spend it on mental health care and spend it on health care, and once that part of our house, the roof of our house, is in better shape, we can put on a front porch or a front step. That makes perfect sense.

I think the other part around the dental part of this program is understanding that 11 of 13 jurisdictions in Canada do have dental programs for their citizens. I think it is also important that the Canadian Dental Association stated that a better idea than creating this “Ottawa knows best” federalist program would be to actually help tweak those provinces that are struggling and look at provinces that have excellent dental health care programs, and then help other provinces better understand how they could make a better program.

I think the other part that flows very nicely into that is understanding that the administration of this program, although purported to be very simple, is in the hands of a government that cannot manage other simple programs, even programs that have been in existence for decades.

Let us talk about passports, for instance. The passport system, as far as I can discern in my own life, has worked in an excellent fashion for a very long time. We would get a piece of paper in the old days. We would then sign it. We would get a guarantor, and we would put it in the mail to send it away. Lo and behold, almost as if by magic, our passport would show up in the mail. Nowadays, we do not need guarantors. It has become even simpler than that, but the government has bungled that as well.

It is the government of “everything is broken”. The immigration system is broken. We have an arrive scam app of $54 million that the Liberals cannot even account for. Not only is it exorbitant in its cost, but they also cannot even account for $1.2 million. Who got paid? Who got rich? Those questions cannot even be answered.

How can we ask them to administer another supposedly simple program? If we cannot even run the programs that have existed for decades, how can we create a new program and say there will be no problems with it? How can we tell people to look at how easy it is and that anybody would be able to access it, when we know we cannot even get a darned passport in this country?

We know the immigration system is broken. We hear that 40,000 Afghans are going to come to Canada, but less than half of that number of people have been admitted to this country. This is a crisis. The Liberals cannot function in a crisis, and we know perhaps that is the difficulty. They are unsure, unaware or uncertain of exactly what the definition of the word “crisis” is. I think that, perhaps, is the difficulty.

We also know the Liberals have bungled the whole greenhouse gas and carbon emissions situation. We know they have not met any of their targets, and we now know their provincial Liberal cousins in Nova Scotia are railing against them. We know that for the average Nova Scotian, the premier of Nova Scotia rejected the carbon tax for a more robust, complete and overall well-performing system. He rejected their carbon tax system. Even though it is being rammed down the throats of all Nova Scotians, it would appear it is going to cost $400 per year extra on top of the insane prices of home heating fuel, and we know that is going to create significant difficulties for Nova Scotians this year.

The rental program, we know, is in response to the Liberals' failed housing strategy. We know it is a band-aid approach, and when the patient is haemorrhaging, putting a band-aid on it is like the old story with the little boy with the dike. We will run out of fingers eventually.

We know the average rental cost here in this country is $2,000 per month. We know the cost of housing has doubled, and we know people are living in their parents' basements. The unaffordability is just astronomical, so we have a government that is spending money. Not to be disparaging to drunken sailors, but the Liberals are spending like that. I apologize to drunken sailors.

The Liberals cannot run programs, and now they want to create another “Ottawa knows best” federally directed program that is likely to be a significant debacle.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:35 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, talk about being out of touch with what Canadians expect of the government.

Here we have supports at a time when Canadians are looking for leadership in Ottawa, and the Conservative Party continues to want to frustrate Canadians through these tactics and the policy flip-flopping that takes place.

Why does the member not support children under the age 12 having support in getting dental care? This would prevent children from having to go to the hospital. This would allow children to get the dental work they need. Why is the Conservative Party opposed to these children under the age of 12? Shame on them.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, I love children under the age of 12. I have had three of my own who were once under the age 12. I also have two grandchildren under the age of 12. I love them very much.

It harkens back to understanding that the government very clearly does not understand there is a mental health crisis, and it will not commit to the Canada mental health transfer the Liberals promised in their platform since the election in 2021, which of course, we all know was called during a pandemic and was unnecessary. They refuse to commit that money. Why did it take them so long to create a three-digit suicide prevention hotline? Why do they hate people who have mental health issues?

I do not know, but as I said before, understanding that, if the roof of one's house is off, then trying to fix the front step, does not mean it is not important, but it means that one has to fix the most important thing first. That is the crisis we have in the health care system and for those suffering with mental health here in Canada.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his speech.

At the beginning of his speech, I was listening and thinking that if he lived in Quebec, he would surely be a member of the Bloc Québécois, because he defends many of the Bloc’s arguments.

I heard him speak about the unwieldy system and the interminable debates we have on issues that could be settled much more easily. I am thinking more specifically about seniors and about mental health and dental care. Curiously, these are all sectors that are under the provinces’ and Quebec’s jurisdiction.

The federal government could agree once and for all to meet Quebec’s and the provinces’ unanimous request to increase health transfers, so that these issues could be addressed by those who are responsible for them. Does my colleague not agree that this would be much simpler, and that it would save us a lot of time, allow us to talk about other things, and have constructive debates like the one we had the day before yesterday on the monarchy?