Debates of June 13th, 2024

Main Estimates 2024-25

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member's statement, I was struck a number of times really about the concept of the privilege of paying taxes. I want to echo the fact that I believe that we should pay our taxes and that they should be paid in the fairest way possible based on the income and assets we have.

I want to get the member's understanding of how fairness in our tax system is our privilege to have what we have to share with others.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that the phrase “Taxes are [the price] we pay for [living in a] civilized society” is quite apt.

I would say that for New Democrats, there are a number of really important concepts that underpin our approach to taxes. One is that they should be progressive, which means that if we have to raise money for the government we should do so in a fair way and according to the ability of people to pay. That means having a sliding scale and taking proportionally more money from those who are wealthy.

The other concept is this: The 1966 Carter commission famously said, “A buck is a buck [is a buck].” That means we should be taxing income fairly. Therefore I believe that it is unfair for a nurse, a mechanic or a teacher to be taxed on 100% of their income and pay a higher tax rate than someone who makes their money by trading stocks and bonds or selling capital projects and pays tax on only a portion of their income. That is why I support the measures taken in the budget to address that.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I want to make one important point clear to him right off the bat. A denturist called me last week and said that the federal dental care program was a flop. He cannot get reimbursed, so he is going to drop out of the program. He has spoken with some colleagues who told him that no one was using the program because it is not working.

Canada health transfers, which should normally be at 50%, are currently at 22%. In my colleague's opinion, should Ottawa not have kept them at 50%, allowing us to improve an existing structure, namely the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec? Is that not what should have been done instead of outsourcing a dental care program to a private company, Sun Life?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. colleague's position that the federal government should be shouldering its fair share of health care in this country. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have whittled it down to about 22%. I agree with him that the slide should be reversed and that we should be going back up toward the 50% federal-provincial agreement that underpinned the formation of medicare.

I will tell the member that dental care is not a flop. I will give him 100,000 reasons if he wants, because that is the number of people who have been to the dentist under the plan. He should tell them that it is a flop. He should tell the 10,000 dental professionals in this country who have signed up for the plan that it is a flop. When people can get their teeth fixed and take care of their mouth, that is an incredible accomplishment in this country. It is something that New Democrats are proud of and that I think will stand the test of time. We will be looking back at this time 10, 20 or 30 years from now with the same pride as when the New Democrats started health care in this country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. He mentioned that NDP governments have the best financial management track records, and that is important. The NDP also delivers results. We are not the party of tax havens or billionaires. We are the party that invests in ordinary people.

I found my Bloc Québécois colleague's last comment a bit ridiculous because the dental care program has been the most successful in Quebec. More people in Quebec are benefiting from the dental care program than anywhere else in Canada, and more dentists in Quebec are participating in the program than anywhere else. The Bloc Québécois can say that the dental care program is not working, but the facts say otherwise. To date, 200,000 people, particularly seniors in Quebec, have received dental care.

The reality is that the NDP is the party that has gotten the most results in Parliament in recent months. Members of the Bloc Québécois have not accomplished much. The NDP got pharmacare. This bill is now in the Senate. When we look at dental care, the grocery rebate and affordable housing, we see that the NDP caucus has been far more effective than any of the other parties in the House.

The members of the NDP are the real worker bees in the House of Commons. We do things to help people and we are seeing results in Quebec, of course, but also in British Columbia and across the country.

The main estimates are an opportunity to talk about financial management. As my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway said so eloquently, the NDP does have the best record of managing money and paying down debt with NDP provincial governments. We have not formed a federal government yet, but that that is coming. NDP provincial governments have simply outperformed, in fiscal management, Conservative and Liberal governments, and even governments like those of the Parti Québécois.

The reality is that is our record, and we are proud of it. More importantly, the NDP gets its good fiscal management record by not giving away money to billionaires, banks, oil and gas CEOs and lobbyists, which is, critically, what Liberals and Conservatives have done since Confederation. The NDP takes a different approach, which is why we are so effective in helping people.

The main estimates are also a report card for all members of Parliament to basically report back on what they have done since we started the session in the fall, because when we get to the main estimates, we know that there are only a few days left in the session. Let us talk about that. What can Conservative MPs say that they have done for their constituents over the course of the last nine months? It is not much. In fact, a Conservative member would have difficulty pointing to a single accomplishment that Conservative MPs have done for their constituents.

Let us talk about what the New Democrats have done. We got the grocery rebate, which has made a difference for about 11 million lower-income Canadians, as part of a doubling of the GST rebate. That has made a difference for constituents.

We can also talk about the school lunches, part of the recent budget and something the NDP campaigned on, that the member for Vancouver Kingsway campaigned on. As a result of it, hundreds of thousands of school children who could not learn because they went to school hungry will be getting school lunches. That is another accomplishment of the NDP.

We can talk about the anti-scab legislation that helps workers in the federal jurisdiction who are fighting for better wages and better health and safety conditions. Up until now, they have consistently had Conservatives and Liberals refusing to put in place legislation to ban replacement workers. If they were locked out or went on strike, they had no recourse. However thanks to the NDP, there is now anti-scab legislation in this country.

How about dental care? It is the biggest hit of any government program in years, with over 200,000 seniors having already accessed dental services. We can do the math: It means that in each and every Conservative riding, there are 500 or 600 seniors who have already gotten dental care, and not thanks to the Conservatives, because the Conservatives did everything they could to block those programs, but thanks to the NDP.

Yes, those seniors will be thinking, “Why am I electing a Conservative MP when they do not do anything for me? The NDP has been fighting for me. The member for Burnaby South has been fighting for me and maybe I should be looking at the NDP.” Of course, they would be showing good judgment in doing that because the reality is that the NDP delivered dental care. This is something that Conservatives and Liberals refused to do.

In fact a few years ago, Conservatives and Liberals voted against the dental care program that the NDP put forward, but in a minority Parliament, the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus fought, and now hundreds of thousands of seniors have had dental care already. Millions of seniors have signed up, and we know that in about a week and a half, people with disabilities and families with kids under 18 will be able to access dental care as well. By the beginning of July, all dentists will be eligible to be part of the program.

Wow, what an accomplishment that is. Can Conservative MPs point to anything they have done over the last 10 months? No, but the NDP can also point to that.

How about clean energy jobs? Members will recall that Conservatives fought, tooth and nail, the clean-energy jobs program of the NDP that we fought for and got through the House. As a result, good, well-paying, unionized jobs in the clean energy sector will be coming in the coming months because of the NDP.

How about pharmacare? People with diabetes are often paying $1,000 to $1,500 a month for their diabetes medication and devices. Conservatives said, “Oh, we do not give a damn about them.” However, Canadians want to have the program, and the NDP fought hard. Now the pharmacare bill is through the House and is in the Senate. We are pushing senators in the other place to please adopt the legislation because it would mean that up to six million Canadians who have diabetes would have their medication covered.

There are Canadians who need contraception. For women's reproductive rights and freedoms, this is absolutely crucial. They would have access to contraception, and again this is because of the NDP.

How about affordable housing? Well, affordable housing is something that Conservatives slashed. Over the dismal, terrible Harper regime, the worst government in Canadian history, food bank lineups doubled. Housing prices doubled. People would say that the same things happened under the Liberals, who continued a lot of Conservative policies, and that is true. However, Conservatives are responsible for half the problem and they should be standing up and apologizing to Canadians for not doing what was required then, as Liberals should be apologizing for not doing what is required now.

However, in a minority Parliament, the NDP forced the government finally to invest in affordable housing, and we know that affordable housing units are starting to be built now. In the coming months, there will be more and more affordable housing that is based on 30% of income as opposed to the massive rental prices people are paying. Affordable housing will be coming to neighbourhoods right across the country.

Regarding health care funding, the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Harper government slashed health care funding, which has led to the crisis that we are seeing today because Liberals, when they came to power, decided they were not going to restore the health care funding that Conservatives cut. Thanks to the NDP, we are now seeing an increase in health care funding across the country, and that is going to make a difference in the quality of life of our health care professionals and of Canadians who have health care issues and go into the hospital.

As I mentioned earlier, the fact that we now have in place the first steps of universal single-payer pharmacare means that when patients leave acute care hospitals, they will actually have access to their medication. Members of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions tell us that hundreds of Canadians die every year because they cannot afford to pay for their medication.

Every other country that has universal health care has universal pharmacare. Thanks to Tommy Douglas and the NDP, we have universal health care. Thanks to the current leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the NDP, we are now looking at the start of universal pharmacare, which means patients will be able to continue to live long and healthy lives.

Therefore school lunches, grocery rebates, anti-scab legislation, dental care, clean-energy jobs, pharmacare, affordable housing and health care funding are all thanks to the NDP.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about dental care, something that is in the estimates we are debating here now. Earlier this evening, I asked Conservatives if they would cut dental care out of the estimates, and they claimed that dental care does not exist, that thousands of Canadians who have had access to a dentist just do not exist.

How does the hon. member feel about Conservatives wanting to take away this critical health care from our seniors?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is all part of the delusions of the member for Carleton. “It is all a mirage”, they are saying to Canadians across the country, as hundreds of thousands of seniors are getting dental care, often for the first time. The member for Carleton says that it is all a mirage, that they are not getting dental care, as they sit in the dentist chair, as they actually have the dentist provide them with the care, as the oral hygienist provides them with care, as the denturist provides them with care.

The Conservatives' response and the member for Carleton's response is that it is all a mirage, that they are not living in reality and that they should live the Conservative reality, where dental care does not exist.

I prefer to live in real life.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague is always a pleasure, but we know that history repeats itself. That is usually the case.

Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. We remember one important thing the NDP did: It signed the Sherbrooke declaration. I would remind my colleague that the Sherbrooke declaration of 2005 respected the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces, and it even supported decentralization. Now the New Democratic Party champions centralized government. That is not decentralization.

I would like my colleague to tell me why, today, he is not honouring this supposedly democratic declaration that his own democratic party signed on to.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous respect for Quebeckers. We respect the fact that Quebeckers are the largest group in the country to have signed up for the NDP's dental care program.

The largest number of subscribers in Canada are in Quebec. The largest number of dentists who signed up for the program and the largest number of seniors who have received dental care are all in Quebec.

The same goes for pharmacare. The largest coalition in the history of Quebec is calling on the Bloc Québécois to support the NDP's pharmacare plan.

Is the Bloc Québécois respecting Quebec?

I do not believe it is when it tells Quebeckers no.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the beginning few moments of the member's interventions, he lauded the history of provincial NDP governments when it came to fiscal responsibility. I have a simple question for him. Would that history include the record of the 1990-95 Bob Rae government in Ontario, as I lived through that period?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually not quoting myself. I am actually quoting the federal Ministry of Finance, which I think the member would agree is not a hotbed of social democrats. The federal Ministry of Finance issues the fiscal period returns, and it has been telling us, year after year, for the last 40 years, that the best governments at managing money, paying down debt and providing services are NDP governments. That is a quote from the Ministry of Finance.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank my colleague with the NDP for his excellent speech. He highlighted that it has been thanks to the NDP that we have been able to get so much more for Canadians. Our small and mighty party has indeed gotten a lot more, including extending Jordan's principle and the Inuit child first initiative.

I wonder if the hon. member can share with us what an NDP government would do for indigenous peoples much more than what we see from the Liberals.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say qujannamiik to my colleague from Nunavut, who has been an extraordinary advocate for Nunavut and for indigenous peoples. She, as we know, was granted the award for best constituency politician because of that.

As she is well aware, an NDP government would take a strong approach, a robust approach, of reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the estimates tonight, and I want to focus my attention on housing, which finds much support in the estimates. We have a variety of federal initiatives that are given further support or created anew where they did not exist before.

The first, which I think it is fair to say is the signature program of the federal government with respect to housing policy, is the housing accelerator fund. The fund has been topped up by the amount of $400 million. The fund is ultimately about working with municipalities. We cannot address the housing crisis, and we have to call it that, call it what it is, if we do not do so through partnership, working with municipal councillors, with mayors in particular and with public servants at the local level to see critical changes that will address what ultimately underpins the housing crisis, and that is a crisis in supply.

When there is a lack of supply, inevitably costs go up. That is true for anything, and it is true for housing. Let us be clear about something: We are all diminished by that. Whether it is young people or people across the demographic spectrum, when they cannot afford a home, we are all less. When they do not have a roof over their head, that is particularly tragic. That is something we are all especially diminished by.

What the federal government has said is that if cities and towns are willing to move forward in an ambitious way and make the necessary changes to zoning, for example, which we know is absolutely critical when it comes to getting more homes built, and if cities in particular are more open to densification, then there are federal dollars that can flow to cities.

For instance, there is putting in place zoning changes that will allow for more missing middle homes to be built. We are talking about duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, mid-rise apartments and row houses. That is what is meant by “missing middle homes.” When those zoning changes come, we see a green light given to developers and builders that they can build more homes that way. When densification is embraced, we get the same outcome.

Already the government has concluded no less than 179 agreements in this regard, and we will continue. This supplementation of $400 million would allow the program to do exactly that, to continue. It is there for municipalities, in return for making those kinds of changes. It is not simply federal dollars that go to municipalities without any expectation. There is an expectation here. The expectation is that if those changes get put in place, federal dollars can go to a variety of things that will create more incentives, a greater push for housing to be built.

We are talking about permit modernization. All too often, I hear in my capacity, not just as parliamentary secretary responsible for housing but from colleagues across the aisle, about cumbersome permitting processes in municipalities, large and small, that extend the length of a building project. What we are seeing is that with federal funding that comes through the housing accelerator fund, part of that funding can go to modernizing permits, including through the use of artificial intelligence. There is a whole debate, obviously, transpiring across democracies about the place of AI, and that is an important debate to have. There are many negatives, of course, that come with it, but there are also positives that can be embraced as well. A modernized permitting system is something that can have a very good impact.

We are seeing in Kelowna, for example, through funds secured through the housing accelerator fund, permitting modernized with the help of AI. It is cutting down on application approvals, not just by months, but even better than that. What used to take years could potentially take just days and maybe even just a few hours. We are seeing Kelowna just start this. It is a pilot project, but let us see where it goes. There are other cities that have embraced that kind of vision as well.

Housing accelerator funding can also go to community-related infrastructure. Local roads, bridges, sidewalks, lighting, bike lanes and even fire halls are eligible for financial support through this program. Again, this is if cities and towns step up and decide to be ambitious with what I talked about before, the necessary zoning changes and densification in municipalities that should be embraced.

Transit, for example, where it connects to housing, can be funded through this particular program and, of course, non-market housing, which colleagues in various parties, not in the Conservative Party unfortunately, have brought up.

Just yesterday, I was in my community of London, where $2 million was allocated for a supportive housing project that will see 50 fellow community members, who unfortunately have experienced homelessness, taken off the street with the support of a not-for-profit and given access to wraparound supports on site. Those wraparound supports include mental health support, addiction support, employment training and a variety of other basic supports that will allow them to transition to something better.

Opposed to the housing accelerator fund is the Conservative Party. Just a couple of weeks ago, one of the longest-serving members of the Conservative Party, who I believe is the dean of the Conservative caucus, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, made clear her view, and I think she spoke for her party when she did so, that the federal government has no role to play in housing policy. She said it is outside of federal jurisdiction to worry about housing. It explains, for example, why the Conservatives' so-called housing plan is so weak. There are no details in their plan on how to get more homes built. There are a few details, but nothing substantive. That is the reason why I do not believe they think that the federal government has any meaningful role to play.

How else would we explain the fact, and it is a fact, that the Leader of the Opposition, at every opportunity, has found ways to insult mayors and has found ways to insult councillors, instead of wanting to work? Yes, difficult conversations have to sometimes take place around issues like zoning, around the culture of NIMBY. All of these things do play a role, but constructively we can overcome them. The Leader of the Opposition has found ways to create difficulties, to create a difficult relationship already with municipal leaders, with mayors in particular. That is not acceptable, certainly for someone who aspires to be prime minister. We know what is at stake, and that is why we are pushing back against it.

Also in the estimates, there is $6 billion for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. That funding will go to what is called housing-enabling infrastructure, namely water, waste-water, stormwater and solid waste infrastructure. We cannot talk about housing without talking about the enabling infrastructure that makes housing possible, that makes communities possible. As part of this, as part of ensuring that communities have the infrastructure they need to ensure that housing happens, we have attached conditions to make sure that more housing gets built.

I raised a point earlier about missing middle housing. The condition that we are leading with is that provinces have to sign on to agree on four-unit buildings as of right. In other words, fourplexes, for example, do not have to go through a cumbersome bureaucratic process at the municipal level to get approval. We have seen this before, where builders want to put up a fourplex, and where the members of the community want to put up a fourplex, but there are all sorts of local restrictions and bureaucracy in place that prevent that from happening. As part of the conditionality that we have attached to infrastructure funding, we are saying that as of right, these kinds of projects need to be given approval.

Conservatives, again, are opposed. I am not saying anything that we do not already know. They are on the record, but it bears emphasis for a party that talks a lot. I will give Conservatives this credit. They talk a lot about housing. They talk a lot about problems that exist in our democracy. We have challenges. We have a housing crisis, as I said before. However, they never offer solutions. Like any good right-wing populist party, I suppose, they never have solutions to the problems they identify.

What we are saying is that if one is serious about getting more homes built, then attaching this kind of conditionality is important. What did we see? Just a few weeks ago, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party stood on a yacht and declared that missing middle housing is not a priority, that we do not need to see more homes built. That is not an acceptable position, not for a deputy leader, not for a leader, not for any member of Parliament.

Furthermore, in the estimates, we can see $1.5 billion for affordable housing. This is the affordable housing fund that will help to fund non-market housing in this country. We do need to see more non-market housing in Canada. There is no question about that. Currently, it is estimated that around 4% of the overall housing stock is made up of non-market housing. We need to go beyond that.

As I said, 4% of the overall housing stock is made up of non-market housing. The OECD average is around 8%. We certainly need to meet at least that average, and I believe that a measure like this can help us get there.

It is not enough to focus only on market solutions. Our government is doing that. We understand that there is a place for market solutions to incent the private sector, and the building sector specifically, to get more homes built. Months ago, we lifted the GST from the construction of purpose-built rentals, and it took a while to get it through the House because of unfortunate Conservative filibustering. Those are rental apartments that will be for the middle class or for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

In an environment where we have high interest rates, where we have high construction costs and where we have high costs related to labour as well, we have to think outside the box. We have to do things we have not done before, and lifting GST is something that we have done to incent the private sector, recognizing that market-based housing—in this case, apartments—has a place. That private sector has seen a green light already. I think any member of Parliament in this House who has engaged with builders in their community will say that this is exactly a green light.

Builders are quite excited by this prospect, but the Conservatives have a so-called “housing plan” that does not include this vision at all. They want to attach the GST. They want to keep it in place for the purposes of putting up rental apartments. It makes no sense.

Deeply related to this, when we are talking about ensuring that people have a roof over their heads, we have to look at non-market options. I talked before about the vision for supportive housing that programs like the accelerator fund make possible. This affordable housing fund also makes that possible. It allows people to find something better, a new path, a path with dignity, and already we have seen 71,000 people taken off the street through the national housing strategy. We have seen 125,000 people who were very close to being homeless but are not homeless and have a roof over their head.

Every year, as we saw in a recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 50,000 Canadians are supported through our affordable housing programs that exist right now. This supplements those programs, but the Conservatives, in their housing plan, never mentioned homelessness, not once.

There is $1.5 billion for co-operative housing as well. This is another affordable option. Of course, it is a perfectly good example of affordable housing.

What are co-ops? They are not-for-profits. At a co-op, residents own jointly and manage jointly their homes. Surplus dollars go toward the upkeep of the co-op. The form varies. They be large apartments or smaller townhouses. In either case, they provide a sense of community and a sense of democratic decision-making. So much is the Leader of the Opposition insulted when he sees visions like this come to fruition that he called it Soviet-style housing just a few months ago.

That is something that the 250,000 Canadians who live in co-ops have not forgotten. He was criticized roundly, and not just in this House of Commons. Even this morning, I was sitting with the Housing Advocate in the House of Commons committee that is responsible for housing, and we do have a Housing Advocate in this country. It is an important role. It is something that this government created to ensure that we had monitoring of the overall housing situation, and that includes understanding where we are with respect to non-market housing.

Madam Houle made it clear that the position of the Conservative leader is an unacceptable one when it comes to co-op housing. In the 1970s and 1980s, we saw thousands of co-op homes built. In the 1990s, different governments of various partisan persuasions—not just Conservative governments, but Liberal ones too—decided to invest elsewhere, or not at all, with respect to housing. As such, we saw far fewer co-ops, but just a few days ago, the federal government put forward an initiative that would invest $1.5 billion, as I mentioned already. That is the single largest investment in co-op housing that we have seen in the past 30 years. That is transformational when it comes to getting more homes built.

Again, the co-op model offers a lot. It is not an example of Soviet-style housing at all. The Leader of the Opposition says he is a student of history; he really ought to go back and look at that history. Co-op housing is something that allows for people to live with dignity, and that is why Liberals have embraced that vision for housing, along with other visions,.

There is $1.5 billion in the estimates for the Canada rental protection fund. We see that grants and loans will be provided to not-for-profits so that they can purchase apartments and keep rates of rent affordable. Rental rates in Canada have gone up. We know that. They have gone up dramatically in many cases. That is not an acceptable situation.

We are incenting the private sector. I already talked about the GST waiver the government introduced, and we are incenting the private sector in other ways, such as with low-interest loans facilitated through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, to allow builders to have another option. When we look at what CMHC can provide in terms of a low-interest loan compared to what the big banks would provide, the CMHC option is much more affordable. It gives builders the opportunity to build and add more apartments to the market.

When we have a situation like the one we have, a supply crisis, it makes sense to work with not-for-profits to give them the resources they need, either in the form of grants or loans, to go out and purchase apartments and keep that rental rate at an affordable level.

Having only a market-based solution as a vision is not recognizing that there is a continuum that we need to understand with respect to housing. We need social housing on the one side, all the way to market-based options on the other. Rental options and options for prospective homeowners all have to come together in policies to address the continuum that is housing. That is the vision on housing that the government has put forward.

Let me also talk about other measures that go hand in hand with that vision for housing.

I said earlier that we are all diminished when people do not have a roof over their heads. We are all diminished when people cannot afford to buy a home or rent a home. These are all questions of well-being. That is what we ought to be pursuing: the politics of well-being and the policies that allow for people to live with dignity.

Hand in hand with that kind of approach is a vision that allows people to get access to health care in ways that they have not had before. We talk about oral health care. Going to the dentist is as important as any type of health care. We cannot talk about healthy people without talking about housing. We cannot talk about people living in a healthy way unless they have access to dental support. That is why $8.4 billion is in these estimates to go toward people in a middle-income situation and in particular a lower-income situation.

Just on the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to seniors in my community. I was approached by two seniors when I was out in London who thanked me for the federal initiative. I will have to thank the government and the Minister of Health in particular for their vision on this. The seniors will get dentures for the first time in a decade. In fact, in one case, it was over a decade. Imagine the dignity that flows from that. Imagine the pride that they can have now. In fact, I do not have to imagine it because they shared it with me. It was really quite moving to hear, and that is why the government believes in programs exactly like this.

We can add to that a vision on child care, a vision on pharmacare and a national school food program. They are all examples of the kinds of programs this government is championing, is going to fund and is funding already.

Finally, the Canada child benefit attaches to that. Hundreds of thousands of children and 2.3 million families have been lifted out of poverty as a result of that particular benefit. To my estimation, that is the most important advent in social policy that we have seen since the introduction of public health care in the 1960s. It has ensured, as I said before, a dignified life for everyday Canadians. That is something that all of us have the responsibility to work toward.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his talk.

Obviously, we are going to disagree on a lot of things, but one thing I want to bring up is the most recent Auditor General report on housing on reserves.

The Auditor General noted many things with regard to CMHC. CMHC was relying on data that was 20 years out of date. CMHC had been warned, but it refused to get updated data, which left Alberta, Manitoba and several other provinces severely underfunded. The reserves with the poorest housing conditions were given the least amount of funding per capita, because CMHC was not following up to get proper data.

The application process, even though CMHC had been warned since 2017 that it was too onerous on smaller, poorer reserves, was ignored, and this onerous application process was continued. Then CMHC did not track whether the work done on the housing actually met building codes.

These items noted by the Auditor General had all been going on for a long time, yet somehow the government managed to find millions and millions in bonuses to reward the failure of this parliamentary secretary's department. Why?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 35,000 homes on reserve have either been renovated or built anew because of actions taken by this government.

Is it good enough? No, it is not good enough. However, I have worked with the member before on the public accounts committee. I do respect him and I know he takes these issues seriously. In fact, I would hope that he takes them so seriously as to go back to his caucus and ask for their leader to put forward a serious vision on housing that includes a vision on indigenous issues and a reconciliation agenda, not just in terms of the housing challenges that we find on reserve but also in the urban situation as well.

Our government is doing that. We have an urban, rural and northern housing strategy that we have worked on that is moving forward hand in hand with indigenous peoples, and in fact is led by indigenous peoples.

I would also note, and it is not an irrelevant point, that the Leader of the Opposition said something years ago, and I wonder if he still feels this way. He probably does. He said that if indigenous peoples wanted to see a better outcome, then they should work harder. Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition, someone who aspires to be prime minister. That is unacceptable.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for what was actually a very good speech—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will interrupt the hon. member, and I will stop the clock.

I want to let hon. members know that because it was a 20-minute speech, there is a 10-minute question-and-answer period, so each party recognized in the House will probably be able to get two minutes of questions in total,.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar was up. He has about 19 seconds left before his time for questions expires.

The hon. member.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I do commend the member on his oratorical skills.

It seems as though many members on that side live in a world where everything is okay, but that is not the world in which my constituents are living. I feel that it is probably not the world his constituents are living in.

My question to the member is this: Does he really believe that everything is okay economically, and that in fact the propositions being put forward by this government are working?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that in my speech.

We can do much better in this country, but I would ask the member this: What would his government cut? We do not know what the Conservatives would do. They have not been very specific at all, and they probably will not be, but they have not been shy about embracing an austerity agenda, so what would they cut? Would they cut the Canada child benefit that I just talked about? Would they cut dental care or child care? Would they cut any meaningful initiatives on dealing with the climate crisis? Would they cut programs to support home building in Canada?

They would cut all of that.

We need to do better in Canada, and there is no question about it, but the alternative that we are talking about is a pathway that would take us back not just to the Harper years but to something even worse.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a lot about housing.

I cannot help but think about the people at the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR. It is an association in my home town of Granby. This week it organized a protest against the commodification and financialization of housing. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. They are calling on the federal government to invest in solutions to the housing crisis, which is crucial for them. I also had the opportunity to talk about it with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It was an important event.

Yes, my colleague talked about housing but, more specifically, how is his government proposing to tackle this critical issue? This touches on a fundamental human right, that of housing. Housing should not be treated as a commodity.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a housing crisis. It is necessary for our government, as well as every member of the House, to come up with ideas to address this crisis. Our government is working with organizations, as well as provincial and municipal governments, and that work needs to continue.

I would add that market options have a place in the discussion. However, I think the member is talking about non-market options for community members in her constituency, in my constituency and all our constituencies who need support. That supportive housing model, which I think is really a signature of that, comes as a result of initiatives put forward by the government in different ways. We can and should do more; however, we are acting in a meaningful way.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am quite disappointed that, in a 20-minute speech on housing, the member never mentioned anything with respect to the needs of first nations, Métis or Inuit.

The Auditor General reported at one point that the need for housing just for first nations is at $135 billion, yet the government only budgeted $4 billion over seven years. This will keep indigenous peoples completely marginalized in overcrowded and mouldy housing units.

I would like to give the member an opportunity to talk more about how the Liberals plan to meet the housing infrastructure needs, because the gap is so huge. What will the government do not only to acknowledge that more needs to be done but also to go beyond lip service and actually make sure that indigenous peoples are getting the housing they need so they can thrive?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that the member has contributed enormously to this discussion of housing and infrastructure, in particular with respect to her community, the challenges that we find in the north and the challenges that are experienced by indigenous peoples across the country.

I pointed out just a few minutes ago, perhaps the member did not hear me, what the government has done and said that more needs to be done. We see a situation that is not acceptable in Canada. She pointed to the infrastructure gap. There are initiatives in place to help address that gap, but it cannot be met only by government. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is taking more of a focus when it comes to these kinds of issues, namely, addressing the gap and the required investment that would have to take place to incent the private sector to be part of the solution. I think that can move forward. I think it is moving forward because of a different vision articulated by the Infrastructure Bank. I know the Conservatives do not like the Infrastructure Bank, but if we look at what it has carried out recently with respect to a policy vision, it does offer a constructive approach to the matter raised by the member.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member talked a lot about housing, massive investments and connections with the municipalities. Is he aware that, in Quebec at least, the money for municipalities has to go through Quebec? It is a law that exists in Quebec.

Is he aware that Ottawa imposing conditions, trying to set requirements and starting to get involved in municipal zoning, when it is so far from local communities, makes no sense? Does he agree to transfer the money to Quebec unconditionally?