44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 18, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, in the earlier debate, the hon. member referenced questions that colleagues from this side of the House were asking as to the status of the consultations and the actual number of asks from provinces.
I come much more from an ag background, where there is a long-standing tradition where ag is a shared jurisdiction. We have a long-standing tradition of a 60-40 cost share on much of the programming.
When we are dealing with the area of health, where does jurisdiction come into it? What is the agreed upon cost share? We hear the provinces asking for more money. That is where the relevance comes from the question of the interaction between the federal government and the provinces.
I will ask the question again. What are the provinces telling the government about dental health care?
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to set this narrative that we are trying to propose something that was never asked for. My counter-argument to that earlier was that I do not understand why we need to wait to have that request made of us. Why is this legislature not mature enough and capable enough to set policy on its own without requiring that?
The member compared it to agriculture. The delivery of health care might be the responsibility of the provinces, but certainly the cost of health care is not solely on the provinces. The cost of health care is through a formula that has been prescribed. In my opinion, that is what is so important when talking about this. Yes, there is shared jurisdiction in terms of paying for it. Delivery might be more on the provincial side, but that does not mean the federal government cannot initiate policy that will help out individuals through CRA, as this would do.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He refers to provincial programs as though they were leftover programs and inadequate solutions, when the Quebec program already exists. What we are asking is not just to tell them to accept the program as it is and give us the money. What Quebec is asking for is the right to opt out with full financial compensation for programs with comparable objectives.
I understand that they want to do something big that they call “national”. They say this is the Parliament of Canada and that this applies to all Canadians, but when it was time for the carbon tax, the provinces that performed like Quebec with its permit trading system, the government was very proud to allow Quebec to opt out because it was effective.
Why does that work for the carbon tax but, suddenly, when the government has this desire to centralize everything, the principle of asymmetry no longer exists?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member and I have spoken specifically on the carbon tax in the past and I have been very complimentary of Quebec's very aggressive position when it relates to pricing pollution. It understands it. It gets it.
As it relates to this particular bill, conceptually I am very much supportive of ensuring that individuals under 12 years of age who are in families that make less than $90,000 a year get access to this funding. If the member is suggesting that we need to further look at the bill to ensure individuals are taken care of and that Quebec in particular would have an opportunity to realize some savings due to the fact that it is already doing this, then that is something that could come up in committee where the bill is going to next.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this debate always strays away from the real need for dental care in this country. When people say programs already exist, it is simply not true. There is no province that provides coverage for every family, every individual, every person with a disability who earns less than $90,000 a year. It simply does not exist in this country. I can tell the House about a family that came into my office for help on another federal program and literally burst into tears when they found out they could take their kids to the dentist.
We have heard the Conservatives, in particular their leader, talk like Santa to working people, but when it comes to trying to delay this program so that cheques do not come out before the end of the year, their delay tactics look a lot more like Scrooge.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what the member is saying is right. That is the impression that would be given to somebody who is paying attention to what is going on in the House.
To the member's point, he is absolutely right that there is no program that covers all children under 12. In fact, I hope the program does not stop there. I hope that one day there will be a dental care program similar to the health care program where everybody is covered. That is where we ultimately need to get. When the founders of our health care system created it, there was an understanding that pharmacare and dental care were on the horizon, that those things would happen in the future, and yet here we are so many decades later still waiting.
I applaud the NDP's passion for this and continually pushing for it. I am glad that we can work together on this. I hope this is not the end and that we can continue to see dental care expand not just to the criteria that we are seeing here, but, indeed, to more Canadians in the years to come.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 5:18:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much support this bill and I value the opportunity to ask the member a question and, in the process, explain why I voted against the motion to have closure on debate.
I want this bill passed, but I find closure is used all too frequently. In the first Parliament in which Stephen Harper had a majority, I was sitting as an opposition member and almost every bill had closure. All of us, including the Liberals, lamented it because every time we have closure, we diminish the process of democracy and debate in this place.
There has been a rule traditionally that no member can read a speech. Because we ignore that rule in this place, the House leaders from the different parties are able to say that all of their members need to speak to this or that they cannot tell us yet how many member will speak to it, clogging up the procedures. I think they could be unclogged by reinforcing that rule. Does the hon. member have any other thoughts on what could work?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 5:19:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question is slightly rhetorical because I think the member already knows my position on this.
I totally agree and support what she is saying. I am reluctant to say members cannot read speeches because some people rely on that and prefer it. I can understand that. However, where the member is going with this is that she is basically saying that whatever anybody delivers in here needs to be something of substance and coming from a place of informed opinion, as opposed to just grabbing something that is handed to them and reading it.
One of the other stall tactics we see is not just putting up as many speakers as the party can. After a whole wack of speakers have spoken, then the opposition will put forward an amendment, which basically resets the roster and everybody can speak to it again. I used to be frustrated when I would see and hear about what Stephen Harper was doing. I admit that I was not as informed about the realities of how this place functioned at the time. I now understand it and I see what happens. I really hope that we can amend the Standing Orders to better reflect and put to rest that method of debate.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for his very passionate speech on Bill C-31.
Can he outline what kind of impact getting dental care will have on his community and the children in Kingston?
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the most important thing is that we ensure we are giving kids the access they need to preventative dental health care. What we see quite often is that those who cannot afford dental care end up in our emergency rooms accessing emergency dental care, which is being paid for through our health care system anyway. What we can accomplish by providing that preventative work in advance is that we can help ensure that kids do not end up in an emergency room and put to sleep in order to have emergency dental work done on them.
The impact it will have on individuals in my community is similar to the impact it will have on individuals in his community and communities throughout Canada. This will help create a baseline by which we all agree that children need access to dental care to ensure they have a shot at a healthy life in the future.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.
For my constituents back home in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, I am rising on Government Business No. 20, which was tabled on October 17, to resume consideration of the motion by the government House leader, seconded by the Minister of Health, on Bill C-31.
This is a programming motion that effectively curtails the normal Standing Orders, which guide the democratic process by which bills are debated, reviewed and voted upon in Parliament and effectively streamlines that process to the objectives of the government. That is problematic. It is problematic for one very important reason, and that is a reason that was outlined in the Liberal platform of the 2015 election.
Government Business No. 20 is a programming motion that not only cuts off debate on a bill that is going to cost approximately $10 billion, but it dictates to parliamentary committees what they can and cannot do. In the 2015 election platform of the Liberal Party of Canada, it stated very clearly that committees would be the masters of their own parliamentary work. Indeed, this is a democratic principle that is upheld through both convention and some of our existing Standing Orders.
The motion before us today effectively wipes away the democratic processes outlined in the rules that govern the operationalization of democracy in Canada, so that the government can push forward a piece of legislation to expedite its own political objectives.
Before I go into the programming motion and what it effectively does, I will say that for the last two weeks we have been more or less debating this bill. The bill was tabled on September 20, and we debated it on September 23, September 26, October 3, October 5, October 7 and now today for a total of 11.5 hours. For all the rhetoric about the Conservatives stalling everything, it has been 11.5 hours for a bill that is going to cost $10 billion.
Effectively, for every hour of debate, we are talking about $900 million and change in taxpayer money. Think of all the small businesses in Canada that are struggling right now and that pay taxes for us to debate and distribute funds accordingly. Ten billion dollars is a lot of money, and we are here in this House to debate it. Our primary constitutional responsibility is to review and approve parliamentary expenditures, and to debate and review legislation. The motion before us today effectively cuts that off.
Since the debate started, the Liberals have been saying that Conservatives do not care about young children, that we do not care at all because we are opposed to this motion. I will just remind them of the second promise made in 2015 that the Liberals do not seem to care about, which was to eliminate water advisories on first nation reserves. That has not been accomplished in seven years, so the rhetoric coming from the government about Conservatives not caring is simply untrue. All Canadians care about children getting the proper health and sanitary measures that should exist in every community in this country but that effectively do not. I am just going to put that on the table.
Now, let us look at Government Business No. 20 a little more closely. Paragraph (c) reads:
...if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, during its consideration of the bill,
(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings....
Paragraph (c), subparagraph (i), essentially states that the government is taking over the administration of committees with this motion and saying that all other committee business is secondary to this bill right now. There might be a valid argument for that, but there is a lot of other important work taking place in Parliament that is now subject to this motion. The first thing this motion does is curtail not only the independence of the health committee, where this legislation will be referred, but the entire administration of parliamentary democracy in Canada.
Subparagraph (ii) reads:
...amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2022, and distributed to the committee members in both official languages by noon on Friday, October 21....
Therefore, now that we have voted, after our debate ends this evening on the motion before us and later on the legislation by 11:45 p.m., the government is now dictating to members when they can or cannot submit an amendment to be reviewed in committee by a specific date. Again, that is contrary to the principle that the Liberal Party ran on in the 2015 election that committees are the masters of their own parliamentary work.
What this would do is effectively diminish the power of committees and say that the Government of Canada is going to take over what committees are doing and that it is going to control how democracy operates. I do not agree with that practice. In paragraph (c), the motion states:
(iv) the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 24...and if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. that day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill....
Paragraph (c), subparagraph (iv), indicates again that the government is controlling the democratic process. It is setting specific timelines for parliamentarians, irrespective of party, on what they can and cannot do at the Standing Committee on Health. That is not a principle that any member of Parliament should be happy with.
Subparagraph (v) in the motion is so specific that it even states which members of the committee could table the bill back in the House of Commons. Not only are we told by the government when we can table amendments to be reviewed in a very short period of time of less than a week, but the motion is stating that any member of the committee could effectively put something forward.
I could go on, but this is a very prescriptive programming motion. Again, they are the principles the Liberal Party ran on in 2015, principles that I know the member from Kingston who spoke right before me seemed very concerned about when he was on the environment committee. The member for North Vancouver sat beside him, not as a member of the standing committee but as an observer, and he understands that what his government is doing is contrary to the principles that he ran on in the 2015 election and, frankly, contrary to the Standing Orders and the operationalization of democracy in Canada.
During our 11 and a half hours of debate, there were a couple of key points raised. One is how this bill relates to the inflation crisis that we are facing here in Canada. Just today, Tyler Meredith, former financial adviser to the Prime Minister, outlined in an article in Bloomberg, that the people impacted most by inflation are the ones who could benefit from the money in this bill. In other words, low-income Canadians, those who make under $35,000 a year who might qualify for the rent subsidy and those who might qualify for the dental subsidy, are the ones who are being impacted by inflation. We know, on this side of the House of Commons, that one of the primary reasons we are in an inflationary environment today is government spending. Looking carefully at how public dollars are being spent in this country, that needs to be considered.
The second point is a question about governance. Over the last three years, when some programs that I even voted for were operationalized by the government, they were not done very well. We have no assurances from Bill C-31 that there would be transparency and that there would be effective checks to ensure that money being disbursed to Canadians would be used wisely. I know $650 for dental care means a lot to people, but at a minimum I believe that receipts or a bill should have to be submitted before the money is received to outline a minimum threshold to ensure transparency.
I could go on, but I look forward to any questions in the House this evening.
1463 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct with respect to laying out what this programming motion would do. It is very prescriptive. It talks about the various different stages the bill would go through before coming back to the House. However, the member must recognize and understand the reason it has to be done this way. It is because Conservatives who are opposed to this bill just will not let it go through.
If I were to ask the member why they need to put up speaker after speaker, he would give me a reason about the democratic process and it being an affront on democracy if not everybody can speak their piece and whatnot. The reality of the situation is that he knows just as well as anybody else in the House that the Conservatives are playing games with the legislative tools that they have in order to slow down the process in the House. Can he at least not reflect on that?
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, no, the Government of Canada is playing games with the pocketbooks of Canadians.
We worked in good faith with the government to pass Bill C-30 to give GST rebates, but we have not seen the level of co-operation needed by the government to work to address the primary concerns, one of which I just outlined, with transparency in what has been put forward by the government in this legislation.
The government needs to come clean with Canadians as to why it has not provided clean water to first nations across the country, despite making that promise for seven years.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, whether people like it or not, Canada was founded on the division of powers and respect between the federal and the provincial governments.
In this bill, we see once again the federal government interfering in the jurisdictions of—
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the following question of my hon. colleague: Does he not think that the government’s priority should be to respect provincial jurisdictions, and, if the government wants to invest in areas under provincial jurisdiction, it should transfer the money to the provinces so they can make decisions based on what is already in place?
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 5:33:53 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the member for Nunavut is indicating that there are problems with the interpretation.
It seems to be working again. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question.
It is true that we must respect provincial jurisdictions. It is even stated in clause 4 of this bill that the provision of this benefit will take provincial programs into account. No province has requested that program. It is an important question that the government is not answering.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, the NDP has been supportive of the bill because it has been made obvious that there are gaps in the dental care program. This bill attempts to fill some of those gaps.
Why, during this time of inflation, when families are forced to make difficult choices as to what they can afford for their dental care needs, which is an essential part of their overall health, do the Conservatives continue to play with these delay tactics?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, there have only been 11 and a half hours of debate for a bill that will effectively cost taxpayers $10 billion. When I was debating Bill C-31 last week, I outlined some of the work from every big bank in Canada that talked about the inflationary impact of further spending right now.
If the government continues to spend money, the people who are going to be impacted the most are low-income Canadians. We need to get a handle on our spending right now to prevent further inflation and a further demise of the spending power of low-income Canadians, who are struggling the most.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
I want to thank my colleague for the passion with which he conveys his points in the House. He spoke about transparency, and that is very important because, on the one hand, the Minister of Health was asked a question three times about whether the provinces asked for it. He did not answer it. On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary flat out said that they do not need to talk to the provinces if they are doing something that is right.
I am just wondering if he can comment on that discrepancy. If that was the case, why would the Minister of Health not just flat out tell us that?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
