Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2022

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is agreed.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents in the beautiful riding of Mirabel for putting their trust in me one year ago today. Every day, I am reminded what an honour it is to represent them.

I have been thinking about my constituents. I was thinking about them yesterday. I was thinking about them this morning. I was thinking that last year, the people of Mirabel, along with all Quebeckers and Canadians, voted in a minority government. They voted in a government that was meant to work with the other opposition parties, discuss with them and be constructive. That is what the people of Mirabel wanted. That is what Quebeckers wanted. That is what Canadians wanted.

A minority government is not necessarily a weak government. It can be a government that is strong because it seeks consensus, engages in dialogue, listens and communicates with the provinces and Quebec. A minority government can be a strong government if it goes about things the right way. However, what the current Liberal government decided to do is an admission of weakness. It has rejected the mandate it was given. Rather than doing the work that Canadians and Quebeckers asked it to do, this government decided to give in to the NDP's laundry list of demands to circumvent democracy.

There is a reason we are presented with flawed, convoluted, last-minute bills like Bill C-31. Drafting good bills, especially budgetary and financial bills, takes time, thought, preparation and consensus. To top it all off, the bill before us today deals with health care.

It is important to note that dental health is part of overall health. What is more, this is a field in which Ottawa does not know what it is doing. It does not have the expertise or the jurisdiction. It is not set up for this.

This summer, the people of Mirabel saw that the federal government was unable to issue passports, so they are not convinced that they want the federal government messing with their teeth. We understand. That is fair. What is worse is that there is no connection—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I will remind the member that he cannot hold up documents during his speech, especially when they have the party logo on them. I am reminding the member as he knows full well that he is not supposed to do that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I am sorry for having to be told and I will be sure not to do it again.

Bill C-31 has no teeth and has nothing to do with dental health. It does not meet dental needs. It is not insurance, and it is not dental insurance. This bill reflects a total lack of understanding of the existing programs in Quebec and also in other provinces.

I am going to explain what Bill C‑31 really does. All it does is top up the family benefits and the Canada child benefit that already exist. The Bloc Québécois asked for targeted measures to help families with children, low-income families, taxi drivers and people currently affected by rising prices. However, all the government is saying is that it will top up the Canada child benefit for families with an income of less than $90,000 a year to help them deal with the increased cost of living. Now the NDP is telling the government that this bill has no teeth. The government says that those who want the benefit should submit the dentist's bill, even if it is just for $1, $2 or $3 for strawberry-flavored fluoride, for example, and they will be fully reimbursed.

The Minister of Health is an economist, so he should know that there are no assurances in that. He should know that this program may help families, but instead of increasing their benefits, the government wants them to submit their receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency, fill out forms in triplicate and use the My Account portal. We all know how well MyAccount works and how much everybody loves using it. The government wants people to fill out paperwork, and if they do not have the money to pay for care up front, then they need to fill out even more paperwork to get the money up front and eventually receive care. Ordinarily, if the NDP were not here to get in the way of families and these benefits, the government would give the people money and they would go to the dentist or wherever. This bill is a benefits increase disguised as a dental program where families are asked to spend their time filling out paperwork. I congratulate the NDP.

This whole thing is meant to give the NDP members a chance to parade around their ridings, lying through their teeth about having achieved something for dental health. I have news for them: They have been shafted, and on top of that, families will to deal with red tape. This is unacceptable.

It is especially unacceptable because Quebec is getting shafted even more than the NDP on this issue. To qualify for this Canada child benefit top-up, the child's dental care must not be fully covered through private or public insurance. However, since 1974, Quebec has had an extremely progressive policy for children under 10. It covers most of the services that families need. This program could be enhanced, which would be possible if Ottawa would provide health transfers. This program means that Quebeckers who go to the dentist for routine care do not have to pay a cent. They are not eligible for this federal money. What should Quebeckers do, ask for strawberry-flavoured fluoride or an extra filling? Should we ask for additional services and try to spend more at the dentist, just so we can get a benefit that could have been enhanced, by consensus in the House, at the touch of a button? This is all because of the little deal reached between the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals do not want to talk to the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the Greens in order to work the way a Parliament should work.

Not surprisingly, when the Liberals unveiled Bill C‑31, they came off looking kind of foolish. The day they made the announcement, there just happened to be a press conference in Quebec where people in the field, people who had spent more than just a couple of weeks thinking and talking about the issue, people who are very familiar with the issue, asked the Government of Quebec to increase public coverage in Quebec and urge Ottawa to boost health transfers. These people were asked what they thought of the federal government's Bill C‑31, which will not actually cover any additional services and will get families tangled up in red tape, forcing them to take the kids on fun family outings to the Canada Revenue Agency instead of helping them with their homework.

Unions, seniors' advocacy groups and the poor responded quite eloquently to Bill C‑31. I want to read from a document that I have here. The response is so clear that I could not have said it better myself. They said that it is nonsense.

That is what people in the know are saying. For years, they have been asking for services, for real coverage. They are asking to be able to go to the dentist under an existing program and have the services already covered.

We have gotten to this point because the federal government broke its promise to negotiate health transfers with the provinces. Since the start of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has been telling us that there is a pandemic going on, that now is not the time, that it is too soon. The government said that once the pandemic was over, it would negotiate increased health transfers with the provinces, as Quebec and the provinces are calling for. Everyone agrees on increasing health transfers, except the federal government. When it comes to health transfers, the government has no money, but when it comes to things the NDP wants, there is always money available.

The pandemic is over. The temporary EI measures are set to be lifted on Sunday. Some 60% of workers in Quebec and Canada who are receiving EI will be left high and dry, on the basis that the pandemic is over. It does seem to be over, since Bill C‑31 would implement measures to increase families' purchasing power, given that we are in the midst of a postpandemic surge in inflation, which we hope is temporary.

Enough with this nonsense. People need real care. Children need real dental care. The provinces are the experts here, and that is how it should be. The government must keep its word.

I want to conclude by saying that we will vote in favour of the bill because we support the principle. I think it needs some work in committee. With a few fillings, some fluoride, a good brushing, a rinse and a few amendments, this bill might just pass the smell test.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member is going to be supporting the bill. It is a good piece of legislation. There are some provinces that actually advance dental care more than other provinces. The legislation we are talking about would assist thousands of children in all regions of the country, including in the province of Quebec, where I would see it more so as complementing the services Quebec currently offers.

Why, in any fashion, would the Bloc prevent a federal initiative that would provide badly needed dental care to children of all regions of our country?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am starting to have some experience here, so I know not to expect the member for Winnipeg North to actually listen to my speech. I said that the bill is full of cavities, but, speaking of care, there might be a way to make it better.

I understand that the member comes from a province that does not have a progressive provincial dental insurance program like Quebec does. I understand that it is not part of his culture to know that Quebec already has this type of program. The government is not helping families by duplicating the program, by complicating it and by creating obstacles for families who want an increase in family benefits. Rather than giving them money, the government is telling them to go to the CRA to have their claims verified. How is that good news for families? I would like someone to explain that to me.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I am more hopeful and optimistic than he is because, last year, in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, when I met up with people in parks or went door-knocking, people really seemed to care about dental coverage whenever we talked about it. Not everyone has supplementary insurance or coverage through some kind of public plan, so people really want this.

After the Liberals voted twice against NDP proposals to make dental care available to the poor and the middle class, we used our leverage in the House to force the Liberals to do just that, for the benefit of families, workers and anyone who cannot afford dental care. By the end of the year, dental care will be covered for kids aged 12 and under, and by next year, it will be covered for teenagers and seniors. This is good news for poor and middle-class Quebeckers, and it is all thanks to the work being done by the NDP.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP member just demonstrated the problem.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie is going to tell his constituents that they have dental insurance. However, when parents in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie go to the dentist with their nine-year-old child, they will realize that they still have the same insurance they had before, the one from Quebec, and they will have to ask for a slightly higher receipt and get services that are not covered in order to get the full amount.

It seems that the member spends a lot of time in parks like Molson park. I hope he will take the opportunity to tell people that to get better benefits for children they will have to waste a lot of time with CRA and maybe even suffer through an audit if the dentist cancels their day. I wish him luck at the parks.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to begin this first speech of the fall session by taking the time to salute my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, not only those who re-elected me just a year ago, but all my constituents since I share my days with them. What brings us together goes beyond partisanship and politics, and so I send them my regards.

My speech today should be of interest to my constituents because it is about things that affect their daily lives, things they work hard for, in other words, rent, dental insurance, quality of life and so on.

I will talk about two things: the dental benefit and the rent support program.

This spring, when we were getting ready to vote on the budget implementation bill, some members in the House stated loud and clear that they were voting in favour of the bill in order to keep one of their promises, which was one of the reasons they reached an agreement with the Liberal Party, namely the implementation of dental insurance.

However, the current bill does not actually establish dental insurance. A benefit and insurance are two completely different concepts. Insurance pays for all or part of the dental care a person receives in a year. A benefit is an amount of money given at some point during the year. Too bad if it does not cover all the costs, but it is nice if it does.

In this case, we are talking about $650 a year for a family earning less than $70,000 in that year. I have four children. There have been times in my life when my spouse and I have made less than $70,000 a year. Quebec covers some dental care, but not basic care like annual scaling and cleaning, or sealing pits and fissures in adult teeth to prevent cavities. It was over $400 a year for basic care for my four children. Two of them required appointments every six months. I am fastidious about dental hygiene. There are years when we had to cut our budget to make sure our children saw a dentist. There are years when they did not see one at all because we could not afford it.

In addition to not adequately covering people's needs, getting the benefit is going to be a pain, because parents have to claim it through CRA's My Account portal. As my colleague said, that means parents need access to a computer and the Internet, which not everyone has. When people have to cut spending, the Internet is often one of the things they let go of. Parents also have to trust a system that has either lost data or been hacked in recent years. Sounds great, right?

Why not set up a simpler process, such as using health cards? True, health cards are within the purview of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, not the federal government.

Need I remind the House that dental care is health care and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec and the Canadian provinces? Quebec has dental insurance, as I said earlier. It used to be much more comprehensive, but is only partial now. When federal health transfers were pared down in the 1990s, Quebec and the Canadian provinces had to make tough choices. One of those choices was to reduce the age of eligibility for free dental care from 18 to 10. My father did not have to pay for my dental care because it was covered.

The federal government is once again infringing on an area of Quebec or provincial jurisdiction rather than fulfilling its constitutional duty with regard to health transfers. It is rather ridiculous that the separatist party in the House is the one reminding the federal government of its constitutional duties. The government wants to look like the great saviour when it is actually the one that has been causing these problems since the 1990s. Basically, the government is pulling a Perry, the firefighter who set fire to the Montreal Parliament building in 1849. He knew how to set fires and put them out.

By cutting health transfers, the federal government knew full well that the burden would fall on the shoulders of Quebec and the provinces rather than on its own. It knew that Quebec and the provinces would be forced to cut public services and programs. It knew that those cuts would tarnish the reputation of Quebec and the provinces. It knew that, as a result, over time, any separatist movement in Quebec or the other provinces would be undermined. However, the bad news is that the opposite is happening. What is good news for Quebec and the provinces may not be good news for the federal government.

The federal government is the main reason for the cuts in Quebec and the provinces, the same federal government that, today, is setting itself up as the great saviour of services and keeps repeating that it is not an ATM. I would like to remind the federal government that the money in that so-called ATM belongs to citizens. That money did not grow on trees. The federal government needs to abide by the constitutional agreements and increase transfers to the amount called for by Quebec and the provinces. That is a good deal, because they are only calling for 35% when, under the agreements, the federal government should be paying them 50%.

Some are sure to argue that the current bill introduces an interim measure for two years while a real insurance program is being created. What will happen in two years? There will probably be an election. The interim measure might end up being in place longer than expected, to the point of being seen as permanent. It is kind of the same thing with employment insurance, which has its share of problems. We are told the situation is temporary and that improvements will be made. That was supposed to happen this summer. The reform will be put off indefinitely even though the government says it is urgent. We have heard that before.

In the parliamentary process, suggestions can be made in the form of amendments introduced in committee. The first suggestion would definitely be to respect constitutional agreements regarding health transfers. The second may be to give Quebec and those provinces that may choose to do so the option of opting out with compensation. Doing so would be in line with the Constitution in that it would keep the federal government out of jurisdictions that are not its own.

I now want to briefly talk about my daughter's experience as a renter. My darling Zoé managed to find a place to live 20 minutes from her work and 40 minutes from her school by bus. The apartment is two rooms, in a dark, unheated semi-basement. The cheapest she could find was $900. The $500 a year would represent around 0.46% of her housing costs. That does not include food. She is fortunate that mom and dad can help her, but that is not the case for everyone. The figure of 0.46% in no way commensurate with inflation, which is hovering around 7% and is even higher for rents. It makes no sense to me when someone claims that taking 10% off of $2,500 makes a housing unit affordable. That is more expensive than a mortgage and it makes no sense.

Sending this cheque is not unlike patching a crumbling wall with a glue stick. The wall needs to be fixed. In other words, we need programs that are sustainable and predictable. It is ridiculous that an organization would go through the hassle of creating an entire housing program only to be told, “sorry, but the deadline has passed”. The organization wasted $35,000 to $50,000 on expertise and wages that turned out to be completely useless.

Starting in 2016, 100,000 units per year were supposed to be built in order to meet the growing demographic need. 2016 was six years ago, so we are talking about 600,000 units. Things are not getting any better. I would hope that no one here has had to cut up towels to make diapers, like I did. I hope that no one here has had to stock their cupboard with beans, instant rice, peanut butter and bread to feed their family, like I did. I hope no one has had to roll their pennies to buy milk. That is where unaffordable rent gets us.

I still have laundry—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I apologize to the hon. member, but her time is up. I am certain she will be able to elaborate on that during questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the member has said. For the Prime Minister, the government and the constituents I represent, the Canada Health Act and the health and general well-being of Canadians from coast to coast to coast are things we are greatly concerned about. That is why we have invested historic amounts of money. Never before has a federal government given as much money toward health care as this government has. That is why we have invested in things such as mental health and long-term care.

Today's bill is all about providing dental care and making it affordable for children under the age of 12. Is this member, and the member who spoke before her, trying to say that it does not complement the system in the province of Quebec? Not all provinces are equal. Is she saying that not one of her constituents would benefit by this program? If she is, she is wrong.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's propensity for putting words in my mouth is incredible.

I did not say that no one would benefit from this. I said that these services fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. If a Canadian province, such as his, wants to have access to dental insurance, real dental insurance, not a temporary cheque, then so be it. However, the other provinces, the ones that want to manage this jurisdiction of service delivery on their own, should have the right to opt out with compensation.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I was touched when she talked about how people are going through tough times, how they are struggling and living off of rice and peanut butter. As the cost of living goes up, we are seeing more and more of that in our communities.

I am quite proud of what we have been able to accomplish by forcing the Liberals to bring in measures that will really help people. Yes, the money for dental care this year is a temporary measure. It is not real insurance yet. We are working on adding teens, seniors and people with disabilities next year. Other measures, such as doubling the GST/HST credit, will help people in need who are having trouble paying for groceries these days. We also talked the government into a $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for people who are finding it hard to pay the rent. That extra $500 will help 580,000 Quebeckers.

For all these reasons, I think today's bill is good news for the people of Quebec.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, this is certainly good news, but it is temporary.

Perhaps some will say that I live in a fantasy world, but, in my mind, the government's goal and our objective in this Parliament should be to protect the dignity of the most vulnerable in our society, and not just to win the next election, but really for the long term. This program is nothing more than paltry cheques that amount to temporary band-aids on the gaping wounds that are the insufficient health transfers and the deeply flawed building programs that have been in place since 2016, at least.

There is currently a shortage of 600,000 homes. If we had had an adequate supply of housing, prices would not have skyrocketed the way they did.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend both of my colleagues who spoke before me for their speeches.

I do not know if the Liberals found it painful to have to create this program, perhaps like having a tooth extracted. This is not dental insurance. The Liberals are sending a cheque for dental care in order to save face with Quebec and Canadian families. This is not a dental care program.

Would my colleague not agree that this is counterproductive?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. A cheque is not insurance.

What we need to do is work on bringing in real insurance with the right to opt out with compensation for Quebec and the Canadian provinces that wish to administer that insurance themselves.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the context of the situation we are in right now and what is going on across our country. Over the past summer, I spent a lot of time travelling and hearing people's stories. Canadians are going through a tough time right now. They have already been through a difficult time with the pandemic and now, on top of those struggles, which people have gotten through and continue to feel, we have a cost-of-living and inflation crisis that is driving up the cost of everything.

That means that people are struggling to pay for everything, to buy their groceries, to put food on the table and gas in their cars, but what I heard from people that really struck me was their feeling that, no matter how hard they work, no matter how much they are doing everything that, in their minds, they need to do and doing everything right, they are still falling behind. That is a very difficult thing to feel. It makes one feel very hopeless and frustrated, and understandably so. When people are doing everything right, they should be able to have the respect and dignity to put food on the table, pay their bills and take care of their families.

Clearly people are struggling. When I talk to Canadians across the country, they tell me their story. They tell me that they work very hard, but even so, it is becoming harder and harder for them to make ends meet. They cannot afford to buy the same food they used to, and they cannot get what they need. That is the reality. They fear for the future, and they are frustrated. I understand that because that is the reality.

I also understand what that is like because I have lived it. I remember the difficult times my brother and I had. When I was going to university, I had a kid brother that I had to take care of, and I had to work a bunch of jobs to make sure that I was able to put food on the table, not only for myself, but also for my younger brother. The worry and fear of not being able to take care of a loved one really weighs on a person. It is a lot of pressure, and a lot of families are experiencing that right now.

At the same time, while workers' wages are not keeping up with inflation, CEOs' salaries are skyrocketing. CEOs are not having any struggles. Their wages and salaries are going up while those of workers' are lagging behind. It is clear that is wrong and it should not be this way. In fact, it does not have to be this way.

There is a war being waged right now on workers and working families across this country. We are witnessing a massive transfer of wealth from hard-working, honest Canadians to the pockets of billionaires, and behind every billionaire is a Liberal or Conservative government that allowed the exploitation and disrespect of workers, the brutality of corporate greed and tax loopholes that stole wealth from Canadians. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money in corporate welfare went directly to CEOs and wealthy corporations.

Behind every working family in this country are New Democrats fighting for and demanding respect and dignity, forcing CEOs to pay what they owe and making sure that government has Canadians' backs, because it is hard-working Canadians, the workers and not the greedy CEOs, who make our country an incredible place. That is why, for the past number of months, we have been pushing hard on the government to respond the needs of people.

Last spring, we said that we should double the GST tax credit to put more of Canadians' own money back into their pockets to deal with everything becoming more expensive. The Liberals said no. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government were too busy saying it was not their fault and that it is worse in other countries to act to find solutions to support people in this time. Had the government shown leadership when we demanded more money to be put back in Canadians' pockets, people would have had $500 in their pockets earlier to pay their bills over the summer.

That is the problem with the Liberals. When people need help, they study, they consult, they find excuses not to take action. In the meantime, people are suffering. When it is wealthy CEOs making demands, the Liberals spring into action. That is the problem.

We have seen this again and again. When wealthy CEOs come knocking, Liberals and Conservatives leap into action. These measures could have made a massive difference in people's lives if they had been passed earlier. People would have been able to have this respect and dignity over the summer. It could have helped families get ready for their kids going back to school.

That is the issue with the Liberals. They are too busy pointing fingers elsewhere and saying it is not their fault and that it is worse in other countries. That might be true, but it does not help the family who is looking at its bills right now and asking what it will do to pay them.

It is frustrating we need to force the government to act every time people need support. Then there are the Conservatives, who think everyone should just be on their own. They want to inflame the anger and frustration Canadians rightly feel, but they do not want to provide any solutions that would actually make people's lives better right now. A family that is struggling to pay its bills wants some respect and dignity now. A family that cannot afford for its kids to go to the dentist needs that support immediately. That is what we are doing.

The Conservatives' approach has always been to let people fend for themselves. If people are having a hard time paying for day care or medication or if they have lost their job and need help, the Conservatives tell them to figure it out. Canadians have seen the results of this approach. The ultrarich reap the benefits. Ordinary people suffer and are ignored.

I want to be clear about what we are facing right now in this country. We are facing a cost-of-living increase and rising inflation that is being driven by corporate greed. We are experiencing “greedflation”. No one else wants to talk about that. No one else wants to point to the fact that, while workers' wages have not kept up, CEO salaries have skyrocketed and wealthy corporations have seen massive profits. They have taken this moment in time, this crisis, as an opportunity to jack up their prices beyond increased costs, which is why they are experiencing these massive profits, and people are hurting.

Inflation is not the workers' fault, as many folks want to suggest. It is the result of CEOs seizing on this difficult moment and increasing their profits, which is hurting Canadians.

When we asked both the Liberals and the Conservatives about doing something to take on this corporate greed, both said no time and time again. They said no to making CEOs pay what they owe. They said no to making sure the wealthiest corporations are paying what they owe. They are fine with rich CEOs doing what they want while workers continue to struggle to make ends meet.

New Democrats believe it should not be the workers who need to pay the price. It should not be on the shoulders of workers that we tackle the rising cost of living. It should be wealthy CEOs, those at the very top, who contribute what they owe so we can tackle what we are going through right now.

On what we are experiencing and seeing right now in the House, the solutions being proposed and presented, I want Canadians to know very clearly that we have been fighting for them from the beginning. We have been fighting for them since we have seen the cost of living rise. Because we have fought for them, 12 million Canadians are going to receive up to $467 back in their pockets. Because we kept on fighting for them, Canadians are going to be able to have their kids' teeth looked after. Because we kept fighting for them, those who are having a hard time paying their rents are going to get respect. Because we fought for them, these things were possible.

Thanks to New Democrats, who kept on fighting and did not give up, workers will have money in their pockets. Had we given up, 12 million Canadians would not be receiving up to $467 to help them make ends meet. Had we given up, two million Canadians would not be receiving an additional $500 to help pay the rent. Had we not fought, parents of children under 12 years of age would not be receiving $1,300 over the next two years to pay for their children's dental care.

In the last election, my team and I committed to Canadians that we would fight to make sure we made their lives better. We listened to what Canadians told us was important. So many people across this country said, “We are hurting and we cannot take care of our kid's teeth” or “We are struggling and we need respect and dignity”. We heard them. We listened to Canadians, and we are delivering. It is because Canadians raised these concerns that today we are debating, in the House, solutions to solve the problems they told us they are up against.

We heard the heartbreaking stories of Canadians who had to choose between paying the dental care bills for their kids or putting food on the table. No one should have to make that type of decision.

When we were campaigning, we reached out to Canadians to hear how our policies would help them and what they were going through that they needed support on. One of the stories I think a lot about was when I spoke with Adam, who has two kids, both under 12. He told me that both of his kids needed about $1,000 each of dental care. Although he is earning a decent salary, with all the bills that he has to pay, he is not sure that he can afford it. He will have to take out a loan to pay for his kids to get their teeth looked after. He told me that he had thought many times about waiting until their adult teeth came in, and I could hear in his voice the guilt and shame that maybe he was being a bad dad because he was considering putting off the care that his kids needed because he just could not afford it. I told him that it was not his fault, that he was doing everything right, and that we needed to do better to make sure he could get his kids looked after.

I had the opportunity to talk to Adam after we were able to secure this massive victory for people, and I asked him, “What does this mean to you?” I cannot explain his voice, the lifting of guilt, the optimism, the hope. He said he was going to be able to look after his kids' teeth, that this was going to make a huge difference in their lives, and it was only possible because of this program.

That is what this means to so many Canadians. There are so many people out there who are struggling with what they can do for their kids, but they do not know if they afford it and they are having to make impossible decisions. Parents should never be put in that position, and we are taking a step forward to make sure that parents do not have to make those decisions.

With the interim benefit, for a family who has a child under 12, for one child, they will receive $650 per year. In a less than two-year span, about 18 months, they will receive up to $1,300 per child. In the case of Adam, for his two children, that will be $2,600. He will absolutely be able to take care of his kids' teeth. That is going to make a huge difference in Adam's life, in his children's lives and for hundreds of thousands of families across this country.

Once it is up and running, this national dental care program will provide coverage for seven to nine million Canadians. Families will save at least $1,200 a year. This program will change lives and stop people from having to seek emergency treatment for problems that could have been prevented.

Unfortunately, all of this could have been implemented years ago. Years ago, when we put forward our dental care plan in this very chamber, in this Parliament, both the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to vote against it. We could have had this program up and running already. Millions of Canadians could have accessed it. On two previous occasions, specifically in the House, we put this plan to a vote and both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. Now we are proud to say that it is moving forward and we are going to make it happen.

I also want to point out that the leader of the official opposition does not believe Canadians should get this dental coverage, despite the fact that he has no problem with having his own dental care coverage since his mid-twenties, which has been paid for by the public. He thinks it is wrong that families in Canada that do not have coverage should get dental care coverage. I would like to see how he explains that to the nearly nine million Canadians who are going to get this dental care benefit. Why does he think they do not deserve dental care when he has been benefiting from it, through taxpayer dollars, for nearly two decades?

We believe fundamentally that, as a nation, we are stronger and better when we take care of one another, when we lift each other up. We are better when we look out for one another. Because of New Democrats, every Canadian in this country, when this plan is up and running, who needs care and does not have coverage will be able to look after their teeth. That is a massive step forward.

I also want to talk about another major concern when it comes to the cost of living. We know, in addition to these major steps that we have taken, there is a lot more that Canadians need. Another major concern when we talk about the cost of living is housing. We know in this country, no matter where a person lives, people are feeling squeezed when it comes to finding something in their budget to either own or rent. People are often giving up the dream of owning because it is just so expensive. We want to make sure that Canadians have that respect and dignity. We want to make sure that Canadians have the ability to find a home that is in their budget. That is why we forced the government to change the definition around what is affordable. If a private developer receives public money, what they are building has to be a home, it has to be a project, that is truly affordable.

I want to talk about some of the differences that we have made when it comes to that definition. A lot more needs to be done, but this is a big step forward in where we are putting our money. Previously, under the Liberal definition, a housing project only had to have 20% of the units affordable. In a city like Toronto, under their definition, $2,229 for a one-bedroom apartment was considered affordable. We have changed that definition. Now a building has to have at least 40% affordable. The new definition of an affordable one-bedroom apartment has to be $1,256, which is a massive reduction. That is a huge difference.

We know this is going to help but it is not all. We need to invest massively in building more not-for-profit housing, in co-operative housing and in housing that is there for people when they need it, whether it is to rent or to own. We know we can do that if we make it a priority.

More than ever before, people want politicians to roll up their sleeves and work hard for them, not for rich CEOs. They know that CEOs' interests will be represented, and that is what has caused so much frustration. If we want to change the situation, we have to help them.

We know that for so long decisions were made that benefited those at the top and benefited CEOs. Canadians are demanding that we make decisions that benefit them, their families and workers. That is what we are here to do.

These three initiatives that are before the House are big steps forward, but we know a lot more is needed. We are going to continue to fight for Canadians to make sure they have the respect and dignity they deserve, to be able to own and afford a place they can call their own, to be able to find the means to support their family, to put food on the table and to pay their bills. We see them, we hear them and we are going to fight for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the leader has made. In listening to the debate today, it is disappointing to see that the Conservatives, in contrast to the government and the NDP, seem to not want to support our children. This bill is focused, in terms of children under 12, in providing a benefit that will truly have a positive impact. Then there were the concerns expressed by the Bloc members that the people of Quebec would not necessarily benefit from the program.

Does the leader of the New Democratic Party not agree that today it is time for us to have a national footprint on the issue of dental care and that this is a good starting point, dealing with kids under the age of 12?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is an important step forward to provide that care for kids under 12.

However, I want to be clear that this could have happened a lot earlier if the Liberals and the Conservatives had not voted against it the previous two times we introduced this bill. We will move forward and continue to fight to make sure families get support and help so that Canadians across this country can take of their teeth and move forward in a healthy way. We can make that happen. We are confident that we can force the government to do that.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP talks a lot about affordability, the pressures Canadians are facing, respect and dignity, and how his party is fighting for Canadians.

Is this done by propping up the Liberal government, by voting with the Liberals to increase taxes, to increase bureaucracy, to increase red tape that makes life difficult for everyday Canadians? For example, the New Democrats have been supporting the failed carbon tax that does not work, but it does make food more expensive and home heating more expensive. It makes driving kids to and from sports more expensive.

Why does the leader of the NDP brag that he and his party are fighting for Canadians when they keep voting for tax increases and increased bureaucratic red tape?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have before the House are three concrete ways that, instead of just talking about it or inflaming anger, we are actually going to give people respect and dignity.

We are going to give more money back into people's pockets. We are going to give people the respect to be able to pay their rent. We are going to make sure families are able to look after their teeth. Those are concrete steps to make people's lives better, rather than what the Conservatives have been doing, which is inflaming a lot of anger and building on that anger, but not really doing much beyond that to make people's lives better. We have concretely put forward proposals that would change Canadians' lives. We are proud of that. We know that there is a lot more that needs to be done.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have been hearing from my colleague, the leader of the NDP, is nothing new. He is always promoting greater federal interference in provincial jurisdictions and, in particular, Quebec's jurisdictions.

He made an impassioned plea for better dental care. I completely agree that we need better dental care. However, does the member not realize that Quebec already has a dental plan for families with children under 10?

A new federal program like the one being proposed would do nothing for all of these Quebeckers. If the Government of Quebec wanted its fair share, it could decide to make cuts to ensure that Quebeckers have access to this new benefit. Is my colleague aware of the negative impacts this bill would have on some Quebeckers?

That is what we would have to do if we wanted to be consistent and wanted to get our fair share. That is not what I want, however. I want better coverage. What we ultimately want is for the federal government to give proper compensation to Quebec.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec always has the right to opt out with full compensation.

I want to share a story. I was in a taxi in Quebec City. The driver told me that the most important thing for him was dental care. This senior citizen said that he really appreciated the fact that I was trying to implement that kind of program. He never mentioned infringing on jurisdictions. He said that he wanted a dental care program.

Perhaps my hon. colleague should try talking to people. Ordinary people want programs that work. Ordinary people do not talk about jurisdictions or interference. They want us to help them and respect them. They want to be able to get dental care.

That is exactly what we are going to give our seniors across the country over the coming year. They will be able to get dental care, and that will be done while respecting jurisdictions. However, I still want to point out that ordinary people do not talk about that. We respect Quebec's jurisdiction and will continue to do so.

People want respect and programs that help them, and that is exactly what we will give them.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share a story of a couple, with three kids, in my riding. She is a person with a disability. He is making under $50,000. When they heard about this announcement, he said that it could not come fast enough and she said that it would be life-changing. Last year, when the Liberals and Conservatives voted against dental care, they made this family struggle for another year.

We have three approaches in the House: the Conservatives, who leave these families to fend for themselves; the Liberals, who have to be forced into doing the right thing; and, the New Democrats, who are going to keep fighting for people.

Could the member please speak about the people with disabilities, the seniors and the families with kids under 18, for whom we will keep fighting?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and dear friend raises a really important issue. People waiting for this care could have got it earlier. We want them to know that we are fighting for them, and by next year there will be a national federal program that will cover children 18 and under, seniors and people living with disabilities. This will provide so much help those people. As the hon. member for Victoria mentioned, it will be life-changing.

I want the family she mentioned to know that we will be fighting for it. We are going to ensure it gets that respect and dignity. We will ensure that members of the family are able to take care of their teeth. We are going to make that happen.