44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 26, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I do not really know what to make of that. We have Conservatives in the House who say they are concerned about the cost of living for Canadian families, but they are not going to accept dental care and are not going to support it. In fact, they moved a motion to gut the bill, which would help families pay for their children's dental expenses. How can they square that hypocrisy?
We have Conservatives standing in this House saying they are going to cut back pensions and that they do not want the CPP to be a sound foundation of support for people's retirements. I remember the Harper government saying to 65-year-old and 66-year-old Canadians that they were going to rip off their pensions and take them away.
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif: That is misleading.
Mr. Peter Julian: Canadians judged them on that in 2015 and that is why the Conservatives remain in opposition.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.
We are hearing all sorts of things today, but let us get back to the basics of Bill C‑31. This essentially provides financial support to the parents of children under 12. It is not a dental care plan. I will illustrate that later.
It also creates a rental housing benefit. The Bloc Québécois is not against the principles of the bill in general. However, there are important problems that will need to be carefully examined. I hope that in committee, the parties will be open to the idea of supporting an increase in payments for health care.
The first problem I see is that, as I mention all the time, health falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. They are the ones that have the expertise. As recently as July, they reiterated their request that the federal government increase health transfers to cover 35% of spending, which amounts to $6 billion for Quebec. That is a lot of money every year. When I hear about small, one-time, stopgap measures for housing, for example, and I hear politicians delivering somewhat rehearsed speeches about what they are getting done, to me, it is but a drop in the bucket. Let us get serious and increase health transfers.
My colleagues have become accustomed to my saying this, but I want to quote the Canadian Dental Association: “The single best way to quickly improve oral health and increase access to dental care is to invest in, and enhance, existing provincial and territorial dental programs.” It is talking about investing in provincial and territorial programs. “These programs are significantly underfunded and are almost exclusively financed by provincial and territorial governments.” The association points out that it is “important to ensure that any new initiatives do not disrupt access to dental care for the large majority of Canadians who already have dental coverage”. That is coming from the experts and not just the Bloc.
I had the privilege of replacing my colleague from Mirabel at committee last week. We heard from Ms. Tomkins and discussed this point. The committee heard from many people, including Mr. Ungar, a researcher attending as an individual, who explained the importance of keeping decision-making in the regions, close to the people with needs because the needs are not the same in Nunavut, Ontario or Quebec. That is why there are local governments that are in the best position to make these decisions. The greater the distance between the decision-making and the need, the less appropriate decisions will be.
On the second point, there is no evidence in Bill C‑31 that this money will go to dental care. It pains me to have to point that out in the House. However, I am somewhat surprised that I am one of only a few people talking about it this morning. A parent will be able to submit a dental bill for $100 and automatically receive a cheque for $650, with no further follow-up. That is not necessarily what we want. Imagine the amount of paperwork this could create. Plus, it allows another level of government to dabble in an area that Quebec is already responsible for.
It is so tiring to come to Parliament and see how far Canada lags behind Quebec in social matters and to see that we are always paying for others.
In 1974, Quebec insured children under the age of 10. It is not perfect, and we would never claim that it is, but it started in 1974. I think Canada is behind.
In 1979, we also gave support to people on social assistance. Now, the great, all-knowing Canada is going to swoop in and add another program on top of that, using our taxes, but distributing money elsewhere, not just in Quebec. Quebec has already figured out what it is doing with its half of the budget.
Once Quebeckers comprehend how much we manage to do with half a budget, they will realize we should be using our whole budget and claiming political independence to get rid of useless duplication. There is a reason the Bloc Québécois wants independence, and it is not because it is cute.
I have already moved on to the third item. I got a little carried away again, but it is important to tell it like it is.
This bill is more about politics and optics than anything of substance. The Liberal government is stubbornly rejecting the opposition's ideas. It has no respect for the opposition; all it cares about is a majority. How did it get that majority?
First, it called an election in the middle of a pandemic, which was a bust. That did not work; we wound up with the same government. It activated Plan B and got into bed with the NDP, making promises to that party it never intended to keep. I am sad for the New Democrats. This benefit is for children. It is not dental insurance.
Members of the House are supposed to be able to read. People read documents properly. I would like people to open their eyes to what is going on.
Earlier this summer, Liberal ministers realized that there was absolutely no way they could set up a universal dental insurance plan across Canada by year's end. That was the NDP's fabricated ultimatum, so there were supposedly threats issued that I do not believe meant a thing because I will be very surprised the day the NDP votes against the government in this Parliament.
The NDP led the government to believe that their agreement was hanging in the balance. So the government is proposing a phoney monetary benefit. It is pretending to give money for dental care. In the meantime, young people and seniors will not necessarily get more care.
Ironically, the day the bill was introduced, there was a media release by different groups that were on the Hill, including unions, people who represent the less fortunate and seniors groups. They told us that even though they all agree with the government offering dental care to children, the people who are having the most difficulty affording dental care are seniors. There is still nothing for seniors.
I would like the people from the NDP to explain that to me. Maybe I will get some answers in the questions they ask, but I would love to chat a bit.
What are they doing about increasing old age pensions for seniors to help them afford groceries and pay their rent? What is being done about that? Is that seriously being traded for a single $500 payment for housing? During an election campaign or in front of the cameras they will make fine speeches about how they took action, when these are totally ineffective half-measures.
Let us look at what the federal government is actually doing. The federal government's approach suggests that it alone has the corner on the truth. It is imposing conditions and has decided to take over health care, despite the 1867 Constitution that it signed behind our backs. It is all-knowing.
If the government is indeed all-knowing, why can it not manage its EI program properly? Why did the EI temporary measures expire yesterday? Why has the minister done nothing over the past year, despite her mandate letter to improve this program and adequately protect our workers? No, the government would rather continue to steal from people. At present, EI pays just four out of 10 workers. If that is not stealing, I do not know what is.
Let us talk about passports. What a mess. That falls under federal jurisdiction. The government needs to take action and do something. In early July, my office was dealing with about 15 passport cases a day. I have three employees in my office, four, including the person working in Ottawa. Just with immigration delays and border problems, I think the government has a lot on its plate.
Yesterday I watched Tout le monde en parle. They had people on to tell their stories. Incidentally, I have a lot of respect these people. I think they showed incredible strength. Honestly, in their situation, I do not think I would have been able to speak so calmly about my child having been killed. That is what we are talking about. Faced with this, the Liberal government has introduced a bill that will reduce the number of legal guns while doing absolutely nothing about the illegal ones.
Start by doing what you are supposed to do. We, in Quebec, will take care of the rest. Give us our money.
1479 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I remember when Stephen Harper went to the World Economic Forum to announce that he was ripping seniors off of their pensions. He did not tell seniors in Canada, but he told the World Economic Forum.
Now the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is pushing a motion to cut off dental care benefits for children under 12. At least we are seeing a consistency with the Conservatives. They are going to kick seniors to the pavement, and they are going after children.
I know the member is normally pretty lame in what he brings forward, but I think this really sends a strong message. I want to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about this Conservative vision, in which not only do they go to the World Economic Forum to go after seniors, but they use their member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to try to cut dental benefits for children in need.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 2:17:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with the economy on the brink of a recession and the Bank of Canada calling for the suppression of workers' wages, we already know who is paying the true cost of inflation. Central bankers and economists have always known that higher interest rates will directly result in higher unemployment and cause deeper economic suffering and further exploitation of the working class.
Just last week, the Liberal government callously allowed the extended EI supports to expire, further punishing workers by making it harder for them to access the benefits they paid into, and the leader of the official opposition has shown Canadians his real priorities, attacking the pensions of vulnerable seniors who need it most and calling for a freeze on employment insurance contributions.
In the face of even tougher economic times ahead, only New Democrats are fighting for stronger social safety nets and a co-operative economy that places everyday Canadians, and not corporate profits, at the heart of economic decision-making.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 3:11:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
I can assure him that the people at Service Canada are serving Canadians, whether it is for help with employment insurance, pensions or passports. We will continue to ensure that Canadians receive these services.
As for the employment insurance, I can assure my colleague that everyone is busy dealing with these changes and people are up to the task.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member just opened a huge door for me.
Indeed, I do not support the measures proposed by the Conservative side, should they have any. However, I would remind the House that seniors deserve much more than they are getting right now.
The Bloc believes it is simple. We think seniors' pensions should be increased by $110 a month, not at 75, but at 65. That is one thing.
I touched on the second thing during my speech. Honestly, this is something I learned while doing some reading to prepare for this debate. It is the difference between the amount seniors receive while working and the amount they receive after retirement. I was astounded to learn that there is such a large gap in Canada and in Quebec. Seniors become much poorer when they retire. I think we should reflect on that.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
