Debates of June 7th, 2024

Excise Tax Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives ask that the motion be adopted on division.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

(Motion agreed to)

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

The Chair wishes to draw the attention of the House to a particular situation concerning Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regading mental health services, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

The bill was previously the subject of a ruling on December 12, 2023. The Chair addressed the similarity between Bill C-323 and Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Both bills would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act in order to exempt psychotherapy from GST, along with “mental health counselling services” in the case of Bill C-323 and “counselling therapy services” in the case of Bill C-59.

As explained in a ruling regarding Bill C-250 of May 11, 2022, which can be found on page 5123 of the debates:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

Government and private members' bills belong to different categories of items and are governed by different sets of rules and precedents. Standing Order 94(1) provides the Speaker with the authority to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business”.

The House passed Bill C‑59 at third reading and sent it to the Senate on May 28, 2024. To comply with the principle that the House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, the Chair may not put the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C‑323 unless, of course, the House takes other measures to substantially amend the bill before that stage is reached.

For now, the Chair will give the House the opportunity to do so and allow the member for Cumberland—Colchester to move the motion for third reading of Bill C-323.

If no changes are made to Bill C‑323, the Chair will delay the vote on the bill at third reading until the process surrounding Bill C‑59 has been completed by the Senate. If Bill C‑59 is passed by the Senate and Bill C‑323 is still in its current form when the time comes for the question to be put on the motion for third reading, the House will not be able to vote on it.

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

moved that Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, whenever we have an opportunity to bring a private member's bill to this House, it is an important and exciting day. I know some of my colleagues on both sides, or at least over here, have had the opportunity to do that, and some of them even successfully, which is a great feeling, especially when private members' bills speak on behalf of the people who asked us to do this work on their behalf. It is a significant opportunity that can have a very personal meaning attached to it.

Bill C-323, as you, Mr. Speaker, have spoken about, has had a bit of a tumultuous course in this House, even having been adopted in the fall economic statement, in some form at least. Many would suggest that it should be taken as a great compliment that the NDP-Liberal government would see the wisdom of things that we do on this side of the House, which happens very rarely, I would suggest. We should be happy that it happened. Since it is Friday, we will just be happy that it happened, nonetheless.

The original form of Bill C-323 recognized that psychotherapy and mental health counselling services are not exempt from GST and/or HST, thereby making it significantly more expensive when Canadians have to pay out of pocket for those things. If we do the math associated with it, depending on where one lives, removing those services from GST or HST could mean that every seventh or eighth session would, in essence, be free, although we know nothing is free. Certainly on this side of the House, we get concerned with the use of the word “free”.

That being said, one significant type of therapy that was omitted originally was registered massage therapy services. When we look at how people recover from their mental health stress, distress and illnesses, we do know that registered massage therapy services can be a significant part of that. Many people choose to use registered massage therapy services on a regular basis as maybe a health maintenance type of program. Of course, many people choose to use it with injury and other illness as part of their ongoing self-care regimen. When we look at the utility of registered massage therapy services, I would suggest that adding it to this private member's bill would make perfect sense with the way it dovetails with self-care that Canadians so desire.

I know that I have talked a bit about this before, but it is worth repeating. Mental health difficulties and, indeed, perhaps even the crisis that exists in Canada are ongoing. In a more cumulative sense, we know that after age 40, one in two Canadians will have had a mental health diagnosis during their lifetime. Those fortunate enough to have someone sitting beside them can look at that and understand how significant that really is, when we realize it is every other person in Canada at the current time.

I will try not to irritate the NDP-Liberal government too much, because I do want it to pass this bill, but I cannot not say that I am incredibly disappointed with its announcement of the $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer, which has never been allocated. I know that the folks on the other side of the House will say that they have allocated it in a different way, and this and that. I am not entirely convinced of that. I would like to see the numbers and understand where the $4.5 billion is.

That being said, I am not trying to be irritating to the NDP-Liberal government, but it is a bit of a cruel trick to say to Canadians that this country values mental health treatment and support for people who suffer with mental illness. The NDP-Liberal government effectively said, “We will transfer $4.5 billion to provinces to help strengthen mental health treatment and diagnosis”, and then, of course, it did not happen. That is the proverbial rug being pulled out from under people, and it is a sad day when that happens. It was a big announcement, but it just did not happen; that is the way it went.

To further underscore the severity of mental illness in this country, we know from studies being done that the cost to the economy of our great nation is about $51 billion every year in lost productivity, direct health care costs and mental health quality-of-life issues for people who suffer from mental illness. It is not insignificant; even though we talk in the House easily about billions of dollars, $51 billion is a heck of a lot of money. How do we put a price on individual suffering and the angst and distress that it causes?

I think one of the things that has been done reasonably well in our great country is the ability now that people have to understand that, first, mental health issues are incredibly common, and also, second, that it is important that we have the courage and the ability to speak out about them. Certainly initiatives like the Bell Let's Talk Day have been important. I will also give a shout-out to Kids Help Phone because I think it has done incredible work.

There is also the advocacy work of my colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, with respect to the 988 suicide prevention hotline. I am absolutely thrilled to tell members that he will speak to Bill C-323 later. His passion and his compassion for Canadians always come through in everything that he says. When he speaks, it really comes from the heart, which has a significant amount of meaning for me. I am happy to call him a friend and a colleague.

In that vein, we do know, sadly, that 11 Canadians die every day by suicide. It goes without saying, of course, that is 11 Canadians too many. When we think about it deeply as an individual, we begin to think how bad must things be in a person's life that they think their only option is to take their own life, that things are that incredibly difficult and that there is no future they can possibly see. However, certainly if they have the opportunity to realize there is a 988 number, and they think, “Hey, I can reach out to this number and have someone answer me”, then we know the likelihood is hopeful that they may see a different picture when they are finished with some talk therapy, as we might say.

However, accessing talk therapy, accessing help from a therapist of whatever kind one may choose, has become exceedingly difficult in this country. We know that it has become more and more difficult because Canadians do not have access to primary care. Seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care in this country. Why is that important? It is important because the majority of the way we access care in this country is by having a primary care provider. If they are unable to meet someone's service needs themself, they will reach out on their behalf and help find someone who can.

Even in the town of Truro, Nova Scotia, where I live and where I was a family physician for many years, when people finally make the decision to present themselves to me, for example, as a former family physician, and have made the decision that they need to get some help, they do not want to wait months or weeks to get that help.

I know that they have struggled with that decision, often over many weeks and months, and that when they finally make that decision, it is important that they get help in a timely fashion. Sadly, at the current time, the timely help that Canadians need is just not available to them, and we need to be more responsive, as a country, to Canadians who need mental health care. This is not just for financial reasons but, most important, for the mental health quality of life that Canadians want to experience, and for their inclusion in and enjoyment of society.

We also have to talk a bit about the opioid crisis when we were talking about mental health in this country. People with a mental health diagnosis are twice as likely to suffer with substance use disorder and misuse of substances as well. We all know in the House that this is a crisis in this great country. I am not going to stand here to say that we do not, perhaps, disagree on how it is being treated. However, it is important that Canadians understand that we all would agree, and certainly I do not think I will get much push-back from my colleagues, that there is a crisis with respect to opioid use in this country. We also know that incredibly, sadly and disappointingly, 22 Canadians are dying every day from opioid overdoses.

As I said, we may differ on how this should be tackled. That being said, we do know that resources need to be given to help with things such as prevention. How do we help ensure that future generations of Canadians do not suffer with substance use disorder the way that we are seeing in our country now? We still also believe in this country that there needs to be disruption of those who deal drugs and profit from the suffering of others. That has to be an important part of it and, of course, recovery has to be a part of it, as well as what quality, meaningful recovery looks like. We can argue about that, but we need to make progress with respect to recovery in this country, especially for those who want to choose to attend recovery programs, get their lives back in a meaningful fashion and mend those relationships that have become very difficult to mend.

People need vocational training. They need housing. They need support. We all know that, and it does not matter from which side of the House one is arguing that point. This is a huge problem. In spite of the fact that we know there are differences in how we want to approach it, we have seen compassionate testimony on the health committee. I know, by virtue of the fact that all of us agreed to extend the study on opioids in Canada, that we know that this is a significant problem for many Canadians.

Therefore, we turn our attention to unmet mental health needs. A third of Canadians have unmet mental health needs. That is a significant number of people, and we know that currently 20% of Canadians are suffering with mental health issues. When we do the math, based on 40 million Canadians, that is quite simply eight million Canadians. This is a significant problem in our country, and we need to devote some resources to fixing that problem.

Bill C-323 is not a cure-all. It is not a panacea. It does not mean that, if passed in the House, suddenly all of the mental health issues are going to be gone for Canadians. Boy, I wish I had that opportunity.

For people who are seeking help and are paying out of their pocket, Bill C-323 would help. The bill would mean that, as a country, we would not charge them GST and HST on psychotherapy, counselling therapy and registered massage therapy services. If the House sees fit to, hopefully, pass the amendment and ensure that this bill is significantly different, it would be sent to the finance committee, since it deals with taxes and not to the health committee. The health committee does not want us to deal with money there, but just other important health-related issues.

I will leave it at that. Hopefully, Canadians now have a good understanding of the compassion and concern that we on this side of the House, shared with our NDP and Liberal colleagues, have for Canadians who are suffering out there, and that we see fit to help alleviate that suffering in some way, shape or form, today, here in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have seen a substantial change in attitudes toward mental health in a positive way, where we have seen governments and people, in general, recognize that mental health is, in fact, health and should be a part of having a healthy body. A part of a healthy body is a healthy mind.

Could I get the member's take on that particular issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, often in the House, we have a lot of back and forth. Some days one wishes it were different. Today it will be different. I will tell the member opposite that I agree with him wholeheartedly, with respect to the fact that mental health and physical health go hand in hand. I think that, as I said during my comments, Canadians also understand that clearly, that the difficulties one may have if one is suffering with things like anxiety and depression certainly impact one's ability to have a healthy lifestyle as well, and vice versa. We know that the interconnection is quite significant.

For instance, if one is diagnosed with diabetes, that often creates a significant amount of anxiety and distress for people as well, as do many other diagnoses, cancer or heart disease, etc. They are incredibly linked together, that biopsychosocial model, which is why we often also talk about the need for appropriate housing. Health care services go hand in hand. We know that there is that incredible link. We wish we could ensure that there was not, but my colleague is absolutely right. There is that incredible connection of mental health and physical health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his bill. Whether it passes or not, it will be a victory because it will have been incorporated into Bill C-59.

I wanted to put forward an amendment in the House to ensure that Quebec's specificity and the expertise that Quebec has developed, particularly in the fields of psychoeducation and sexology, would be recognized in this bill. Unfortunately, that was not possible.

Does my colleague believe that these professions should also be exempt from taxes and that, when it comes time to interpret Bill C-59 or his bill, these professions should be included and considered as part of the wording of his bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would suggest to Canadians out there that our sexual health, of course, is an important part of who we are as people. There is no doubt about that. There are some nuances, I think, that we need to be mindful of, not from a health perspective but from a perspective of taxation. Are we then meandering a bit into the difficulties with professions that are not registered or self-regulated professions? I think that those are the things we need to be careful of.

I apologize to my colleague that I do not have that knowledge at the current time, for me to comment on it and say that they should be included. From a physical health, mental health and sexual health perspective, of course, that makes perfect sense. That is all part of being a human being. We are all thankful for that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy on this. I also want to give thanks to the member for London—Fanshawe, who put forward this bill first and has been a strong advocate for mental health professionals and those seeking mental health. I also want to share a quick story from a counsellor I spoke to. She talked about what this would mean and how she has been trying to make sure that mental health services are accessible to her patients and that she does not want to pass along these costs.

Can the member speak about how we need to work to ensure that mental health is accessible to all?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we cannot underscore the need for mental health care and the rapidity with which Canadians need to access it. I just want to highlight, as I said originally, that when somebody makes a decision to say that their mental health is suffering, it has been, most often, a long and difficult decision for them to come to that realization. We as a society need to be mindful of that decision and ensure that timely access to health care is available.

I do believe that this is exactly what Canadians have an expectation to have happen to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this bill in a couple of ways.

First, to deal specifically with Bill C-323 and the issue of mental health, and to pick up on the point I put forward to the member in the form of a question. Over the years, we have seen a substantial change in attitude towards the issue of mental health.

Back in late 1980s, I can recall a wonderful doctor. He was my favourite doctor. Every so often I talk to him, and I still call him my favourite doctor. Dr. Gulzar Cheema was a health care critic back in the day, in the late 1980s. I would like to think that he was one of the pioneers in trying to raise the importance of mental health. He worked very closely with Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, where there was a great deal of emphasis on this.

One thing that he had advocated for was the need to recognize mental health to the degree that the province should actually establish a mental health department. That was to amplify just how important mental health is to our health care system. He went on to run as an MLA in British Columbia and was elected. That is where the first mental health department was actually established, from what I understand. I could be corrected on that, but I believe it was one of them, if not the first one at the provincial level.

Fast forward to today, and we have a government that has recognized the importance of mental health, from a department perspective. The member made reference to a substantial commitment of literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that, as a government, we have not only talked about but also put into place. We are talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 billion over a set period of time to encourage provinces to look at ways in which we could ultimately see better mental health care services.

In fact, the creation of the youth mental health fund can be found in the most recent federal budget. It is substantial fund of money, somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately $500 million. Again, it is there to support young people and organizations and to assist in dealing with the important issue of mental health.

The budgetary measure, a way in which we can contribute to mental health, is something we have been very aggressive on. I have often made reference to the $200-billion investment in health care that we have announced for the next 10 years. When we break down the investment, a considerable percentage of that is going to go towards the issue of mental health, either directly or indirectly. I believe that speaks volumes in terms of the way the national government can ensure that we have some form of standards and can encourage all the different provinces and territories, in our own way, to see more delivery of mental health care services.

It is one thing that I think distinguishes us from the Bloc and the Conservative Party. They do not see the benefits of the national party playing a stronger role in health care, in terms of the Canada Health Act and the type of programming we can put in place. It would ensure that, no matter where Canadians live, whether it is in British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia or anywhere in between, or up north in the Yukon, there would be programs throughout our different communities. That is really important.

It is one of the differences between the political parties here today.

When we think of Bill C-323, we think of psychotherapy and mental health counselling, and the fine work these people perform day in and day out in addressing such an important issue. We need to provide direct support to them and one of the ways we can do that is by exempting them from having to pay GST and HST.

I am grateful that the member recognized that and brought it forward in the form of a private member's bill, even though, as the member made reference to, it was incorporated into the fall economic statement. I am not going to get into what came first, the chicken versus the egg, in regard to this issue. However, I can say both sides agree that it is the right thing to do.

To that end, I am grateful because we do know that one of two things will happen. Either Bill C-59 will pass, and the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption for the GST and HST will take place, or the member across the way and I will be knocking on doors, because Bill C-59 is a confidence vote. That means it will be passing.

In that sense, it is a good thing. It is only a question of time. We might differ a bit in terms of the timing because there are a number of initiatives within Bill C-59, and if we dig a bit deeper than just the number of the bill, it is the fall economic statement. That is a piece of legislation that we were hoping to pass long ago.

One of the problems with having a substantive legislative agenda, as we do as a government in trying to support Canadians, is that time is a scarce commodity on the floor of the House. As a result, we are not necessarily able to pass as much legislation as we would like in the limited amount of time we have. It does not take too much to throw things off, unfortunately. Hopefully, Bill C-59 will pass relatively shortly through the Senate. When that happens, the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption will take effect. I think members on all sides of the House would recognize that as a good thing. No one owns a good idea. Let us just appreciate it for what it is worth.

There was another area I wanted to make reference to, and I wanted to talk about it in the spirit of what has been proposed. The government, along with the opposition, have been also talking about the 988 suicide crisis line. It has been an initiative that both the official opposition and the government have been very supportive of. As a result, we now have that suicide crisis line in place. I think by having that 988 number today, it does make a very positive impact, both directly and indirectly. The primary purpose for having the line is for those who will be using it, and that is stating the obvious. There is also a great deal of benefit because it raises the importance of mental health issues.

That is where I will do the full circle in terms of my comments today on the legislation that we are talking about. Mental health is a part of good health. It is not just being in a hospital with a broken arm. Mental and physical health are equally important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend the member for Cumberland—Colchester on his bill. I had the chance to mention this earlier, but I think that mental health is an important issue. It is something we do not talk about enough. It is often taboo. The purpose of this bill is to give a little help to those who use mental health services by removing the goods and services tax from these services. This will help them out budget-wise. Some are in a good financial positions, but there are others whose finances are very tight.

What is more, there is an injustice here. I will share a few examples. There is a long list of professionals who offer services that are tax-free: optometrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, podiatrists, osteopaths, audiologists, speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, psychologists, midwives, dieticians, acupuncturists and naturopaths. However, a psychoeducator or a sexologist has to charge tax. That is discrimination.

That is also problematic because we know that the pandemic and other things have put a major strain on people's mental health. In a way, society has grown or has at least become more aware of the fact that mental health is sometimes fragile. It is obvious that, when people are put in lockdown, they miss having social interaction, and that can impact their mental health, which can trigger issues.

The situation has not necessarily improved since the pandemic. There has been inflation and rising interest rates. That means that households are really struggling financially, which can also have an impact on everything else. Traditional services, such as those of a psychologist, are already tax-free, but the others are not.

However, there is a shortage of psychologists and professionals offering mental health services. We cannot rely solely on psychologists, who are overworked. There are other professionals who can meet these needs. There are social workers, psychoeducators and sexologists who can help. Why not enable these professionals to receive the same benefits as the others, given that they provide the same services?

I would also like to point out that Bill C‑323, which we are debating at the moment, is interesting, even if, at the end of the day, we may not get to vote on it. It does, however, deserve credit for having triggered a debate. In a way, the bill forced the government to realize that this is a problem. The government included it in its economic update, in Bill C‑59 , which is currently being studied by the Senate. Since it is being studied by the Senate, we can assume that there is a good chance that it will be passed. Since Bill C‑59 is likely to pass, Bill C‑323 will lapse.

In any case, I took the initiative yesterday to submit an amendment to the Clerk's office. Unfortunately, it will not be voted on. The purpose of my amendment was to add a clarification to Bill C‑323. Let me explain. The amendment would have clarified that guidance counsellors, psychoeducators, criminologists, sexologists and couples and family therapists would indeed be included among the professions covered by this bill.

I submitted this amendment because the bill, which the government copied word for word, is vague. If we examine the exact words used in the bill, we see that psychotherapy and mental health counselling are the proposed additions. Since these are not professions per se, but services, we do not know how will this ultimately be interpreted by the people responsible for enforcing the legislation. In parliamentary committee, my colleague from Joliette asked certain officials some questions. He asked how Bill C‑323 would work in practical terms. However, this was more in the context of the study of Bill C‑59.

I say this because Bill C-323 has been pushed through somewhat quickly, since it was Bill C-59 that was studied in committee. The response was that those professions would be considered. In theory, they should therefore be among the professions that will be exempt, especially since they are already eligible for the tax credit in Quebec. Not only are they eligible for the tax credit in Quebec, but they are also regulated professions.

Psychoeducation, unlike psychology, is not aimed at making a diagnosis. Other people can practise it, including guidance counsellors, criminologists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychoeducators, sexologists and social workers. These are all people who can practise psychoeducation if they have received the necessary training, completed the internships and hold a licence from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. This involves roughly 765 hours of university courses, 600 hours of practical training and a master's degree in mental health. Not just anyone can practise this. These are serious people who have completed the necessary studies. They are professionals who are fully qualified to do this work.

To us, there was still some uncertainty. The fact that a public servant tells us that they should be covered is not a strong guarantee. What is more, some psychoeducators contacted us to say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of the changes to the excise tax used occupation code 621330, “Offices of mental health practitioners”. It would seem that is not exactly the same code that psychoeducators use. Since it is not the same code, the psychoeducators wondered if that meant they would be excluded, since the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis did not specifically talk about their profession. Is there a mistake here? I would like to know.

We wanted to be sure that these people did not slip through the cracks. We wanted to be sure that everyone was covered, that everyone could benefit from not having to charge these taxes for services that are essential, that people need. I proposed the amendment, but unfortunately it was deemed out of order. I am not necessarily discouraged. I am disappointed, obviously, but I do hope that at the end of the day, the interpretation will go our way. If we could have at least ended the uncertainty, that would have already been something.

That is why I wanted to point it out in my speech today. I think it is important for every profession where people do serious, professional work to be recognized. I understand that psychoeducation and sexology are two professions that are not as common in English Canada as they are in Quebec. That is because Quebec is ahead of the curve. Quebec launched the first such programs and also ensured that the profession is regulated, which is not necessarily the case in the rest of Canada.

I recognize that it can sometimes create legal issues when a legal framework is set up at the federal level but will not be exactly the same in Quebec. Credits and subsidies will be recognized but will not be eligible in Quebec. In fact, if there is one reason why we would like Quebec to be independent, it is so that there are no more problems, no more being penalized by the federal government every time Quebec innovates. We know our stuff. There are many other areas where Quebec is at the forefront and ahead of the curve in Canada. Just think of child care. Quebec is at the forefront of all sorts of issues compared to Canada. Unfortunately, we are still being somewhat held back by the federal government.

All that being said, I want to once again commend the work of the member for Cumberland—Colchester and the work of all members of the House. Everyone seems to have realized how important it is to support mental health care.

In closing, I would like to add that the federal government's approach is predatory. We know that the federal government likes to give lectures and to tell Quebec how to manage its jurisdictions, but we also know that it is making cuts to health care funding. One of the consequences of those cuts is that Quebec sometimes does not have the money to hire the staff it needs to provide the services that people need. I hope that the federal government will hear that. I hope that, one day, the federal government will finally listen to the needs of Quebec and increase health transfers, at least before Quebec becomes independent. I especially hope that, when it comes time to implement Bill C‑59 or Bill C‑323, if it is passed, the federal government will have listened to the opinions of professionals in Quebec and will understand the reality in Quebec, which can be a bit different from the reality in the rest of Canada, so that these professionals will not be penalized compared to other professionals and so that they can provide quality services to Quebeckers.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of the bill in front of us. It is an important bill that would allow for mental health services to be more affordable in the sense they would be exempt from a point of sales tax.

I want to acknowledge the important work leading up to this point, not just by the member who put this bill forward, but also by my colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe, who had a bill that touched on this issue some time ago and worked closely with many advocates and stakeholders across the country.

I also want to acknowledge the advocacy of my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who has been a steadfast champion for mental health supports and has been clear that Canada needs to do much better when it comes to mental health and ensuring that Canadians have the mental health supports they need.

We know that physical health services, such as optometry, chiropractic and physiotherapy services are already exempted from federal sales tax. Eliminating federal sales tax from psychotherapy and mental health services would be a step forward toward parity when it comes to mental and physical health. We know that the tax exemption would reduce the cost of these services, directly increasing access to them.

However, we also know that the tax exemption would not help Canadians who cannot afford these services in the first place. More importantly, it would not increase the availability of these services, which is far below the existing need. We believe, in the NDP, that Canadians deserve timely access to a full range of mental health treatments and services regardless of their ability to pay. Mental health care is not included in Canada's universal health care system, and Canadians are prevented from accessing mental health services because of long waits and unaffordable bills.

We in the NDP have been pushing for parity between mental and physical health with free access to mental health treatments and have also tabled a similar bill to remove GST from psychotherapy, which is again the work of my colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe. While this bill does not go far enough in removing barriers to mental health care, it is one step in the right direction. Eliminating federal sales tax for mental health services would reduce their cost and increase access.

I have spoken about the importance of this bill and that it is one step, but clearly we in the NDP believe that there is a role for the federal government to go much further. We know that there is a mental health crisis in our country today. According to a report by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, almost 35% of respondents reported moderate to severe mental health concerns. Fewer than one in three people with current mental health concerns are accessing mental health services. We know that key barriers to accessing these services include financial constraints and long waiting lists. We have seen that counselling is the most unmet need of Canadians who are seeking help with mental health. We also know that the mental health concerns of Canadians have worsened throughout this pandemic.

Let us be clear that the reality of the mental health crisis right now, in many cases, did not just happen. We know that the current reality that so many Canadians face contributes to the mental health crisis. We can see contributing factors, like the increased cost of living.

We in the NDP, just a few days ago, put forward a motion calling on the federal government to take bold action to reduce the cost of groceries. We know that the inaffordability across our country is pushing more Canadians toward food banks, pushing more Canadians into food insecurity. This contributes to the mental health crisis.

We know that the lack of affordable housing contributes to the mental health crisis. Here, in northern Canada, where we have a lack of affordable housing, we know that many people are struggling. They are often floating from one home to another, trying to stay with relatives, to make things work, and in many cases, end up homeless because of the lack of affordable housing in communities across the country.

We also know how the lack of good jobs contributes to mental health. A number of years ago, I was the first member of Parliament to talk about the rise in precarious work, particularly in my generation. We know that many young people increasingly face precarious work, contract work or temporary work and not the kind of permanent, stable work that many in our parents' generation had. We know that means a lack of benefits, a lack of pension and a lack of stability, which also contribute to mental health.

However, perhaps nowhere is the way in which the federal government has neglected the challenges people face more evident than in how the mental health crisis is reflected in first nations, including the first nations I have the privilege of representing. In Manitoba, many first nations have declared states of emergencies, particularly around mental health, as well in reference to the opioid crisis, very much making it clear that there is a lack of mental health supports in first nations and in indigenous and northern communities across our region.

According to the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, compared with other children in Manitoba, first nations children in Manitoba had a higher prevalence of mental health illness and disorders. We know hospitalization rates for suicide attempts were twice as high for on-reserve than off-reserve first nations. When the comparison cohort was restricted to only other children in low-income areas, a higher prevalence of almost all disorders remained for first nations children.

This did not just happen. This is because of Canada's history of colonization. This is because of the persistence of intergenerational trauma, whether it be through residential schools, the child welfare system or the ongoing institutional racism that exists in our country. It is also because of poverty. Nowhere is the housing crisis more acute than on first nations here in our country. Here in our region, many first nations face third world living conditions when it comes to housing.

In fact, one first nation in our region, St. Theresa Point, has taken a leading role in a class action lawsuit against the federal government because of what the housing crisis is doing to the community. There is a waiting list of 700 families waiting for a home.

I point to the cuts made by the Paul Martin government in the nineties when it came to housing for first nations, and we know the government of Stephen Harper and the current Liberal government have done very little to invest in first nations housing.

We also know how the enforced isolation of first nations contributes to the mental health crisis. I think of first nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, who are less able to rely on the winter roads because of climate change, and who have made it clear that having access to all-weather roads will not just make life more affordable and allow people to get out and access the services that they need, but that it would also contribute to better mental health.

I will never forget former chief George Kemp from Berens River, who said that when the all-weather road was built into his first nation a few years ago, because of the work of the NDP government at the time here provincially and the work of his first nation, one of the most noticeable impacts of that road was the fact there has not been a suicide since that road went in. This is a first nation that dealt with suicides over the years.

I also know that the lack of recreation on first nations, such as Cross Lake and others, also contributes to the mental health crisis. I will never forget speaking with Amber, a young leader from Cross Lake, who, after friends of hers took their own lives and others tried to take their own lives, said that they need a safe place for them to go. She said that they need mental health supports, but they also need a drop-in centre. Amber said that they need recreation opportunities for them to come together in a good way.

My message is that, while we do support this bill, it is clear the federal government has a lot of work to do to be able to deal with the mental health crisis on first nations, to be able to deal with the mental health crisis that so many Canadians face. The federal government has a clear role to play, and we in the NDP will continue to fight for the people we represent. It is clear that first nations, Canadians, deserve better when it comes to their mental health.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester's bill, Bill C-323. In truth, I wish I had another hour to speak to this because I do not believe that we do it justice when we talk a bit about this every so often. However, I will agree with our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North that we have taken significant steps toward combatting mental health and mental illness in our country. Sadly, there are still far too many barriers for those struggling or suffering silently in the shadows.

It has been said before, and I will say it again. As I sat here today and listened to our hon. colleague talk, I reflected on just how many people we have lost to suicide in my family alone or in the House. The House has even been affected by suicide. In the last debate, I thought about young Carson Cleland, who was 12 years of age, in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. It was 12 hours after the first point of contact with an online predator that he took his own life. I think about my best friend when I was 14. His death has fuelled me, at every step of the way, to do whatever we can so that families do not have the same experience.

That is why I championed and pushed for Canada to adopt 988, a simple three-digit suicide hotline that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Six months after being launched, over 200,000 Canadians have accessed it, either by call or by text. In April alone, 25,000 Canadians have either called or texted 988. It speaks to the fact that we are failing Canadians when it comes to mental health and mental illness. We need to do more. It is not enough just to talk about it. We need to do whatever we can to remove any barriers for those seeking help.

Eleven Canadians die by suicide each and every day. If that statistic is not staggering enough, a further 200 Canadians will attempt suicide each and every day. That is 73,000 Canadians. I get emotional when I talk about it because I believe that we can do more. Treatment for mental health and mental illness is not one-size-fits-all. There has been some great debate in the House today, whether with this reading or with previous readings of this bill, we need to do more, and a great first step, with respect to Canadians seeking treatment, would be to remove the GST and the HST. Passing Bill C-323 would be a great first step in helping reduce the cost of mental health services.

I could stand up here forever and talk about this, but sadly, my time is being cut short. With that, I would be remiss if I did not mention massage therapy, which poses a significant cost for the average Canadian. It has been proven to have incredibly beneficial impacts on Canadians' mental health.

Therefore, I move:

That Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 1 with the view to amend the clause so as to include massage therapy among the health services to be exempt from the Goods and Services Tax, and the Committee be invited to consider reporting the bill back to the House within 15 sitting days following the adoption of this order.

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

The amendment is in order.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and it is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:31 p.m., the House now stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:31 p.m.)