44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 18, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, you are looking sharp this evening. I am sure it will improve the quality of the debate.
I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑31. Perhaps I should start by reviewing the principle.
I identify as a progressive. If I were asked whether I would support a dental care program, I am inclined to say yes, as a progressive. I believe that what most progressives want, in practice, is to support people who have a little less social capital than perhaps some other folks, and this is expressed through social policies that tend to be more generous.
This is indeed the case when we think of family policies in Quebec. This is also the case when we think of access to education. Looking at the principle, then, I do think that having a dental care program is a good idea. However, I must qualify that with a very significant “but”.
To explain this significant “but”, I would like to examine the intentions and the motivations of our Liberal and NDP colleagues. When speaking of intentions and motivations, I do not wish to ascribe any intentions, I simply want to see what is the reason for this proposal. People who are rather cynical might say that the only motivation is the deal reached by the NDP and the Liberal Party. I am not going to go there.
In my opinion, the NDP and the Liberal Party may have thought about developing a slightly more generous policy. I am prepared to give them that. However, there is a major problem with jurisdiction. What the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, is proposing does not fall within the authority of the House of Commons.
I will explain the NDP's motivation by referring to a study conducted a few years ago that really struck me. In the early 2000s, there was a pan-Canadian study—
323 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do encourage them to leave the chamber, since I am sure their conversations are less interesting than what I am presenting.
I would like to get back to the government's motivations. In the early 2000s, a major study was done in several Canadian universities to define Canadian identity. They wanted to distinguish between the identity of Canadians in North America and the identity of people in the United States. When Quebeckers were asked what made them different from Americans, they immediately talked about their culture and language. When Canadians were asked what made them different from Americans, they immediately talked about the health care system and therefore social policy.
That is significant. It speaks to a certain tendency regarding identity. Canadians identify with social policy and yet, when you look at how the Constitution is laid out, all the social aspects fall under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction.
I have the impression that many people in the Liberal Party and the NDP understand that social policies are a strong political driver, that they help parties build up their political base and win the approval of certain segments of the population. Perhaps this is why they are so motivated to bring in a dental care policy.
I think this is very ill-advised because the Liberal government is currently having trouble with its own services. Look at immigration. It is a disaster. Anyone who watched the news today could see there was discrimination. The government often boasts about fighting racism, but we saw that in its own departments there is a form of racism against African francophone students. Eliminating this racism is a worthy fight; it is work that the Liberal government could try to do. We saw that at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
We also saw terrible delays in passport delivery and not a day goes by without a member of our party rising to ask a question about not only the terrible delays with employment insurance, but also the difficulty accessing employment insurance. If the Liberals are so progressive, then why do they not try to engage in this type of action?
Coming back to the motivations of the Liberal Party and the NDP, I would say that the main motivation is more likely the deal between the Liberals and the NDP, which was difficult to reach. I would simply remind members that in an interview with Le Devoir in August, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the government must take time before implementing the type of policy proposed by the NDP. She also pointed out in that article that they had a great deal of difficulty reaching a day care agreement with the provinces.
What the Liberal Party is telling us today, backed by the NDP, is that they are going to fast-track this, that there will be no debate about putting dental care in place, that the bill will be immediately referred to a committee, that we will not have time to discuss it here. Will the same thing happen when the government has to negotiate with the provinces? That is a great concern of mine.
I will stop to drink some water because my lips are stuck to my teeth, and that may not be the best thing for my dental health.
I do not understand why the Liberal Party thinks it is so urgent to pass this type of bill under a gag order, especially since, if we look at what is being done in Quebec, we see that Quebec society is probably one of the most progressive. The progressive aspects of the social policies that we have seen over the past 25 years are generally initiatives that came from Quebec. For example, medical assistance in dying and the parental policy are initiatives that came from Quebec.
In my opinion, it is clear that the Government of Quebec does not need federal initiatives to implement social policies that meet the needs of its population because it has proven itself capable of doing so in the past.
There is one question that needs answering, though. Why is the Government of Quebec not currently implementing its own dental care policy? The answer is quite simple. The Quebec government is not doing so because it is having a hard time meeting its health care obligations with what it receives from the federal government.
I would like to talk about something relatively simple, and that is how the Canadian federation has been undermining politics for decades. I am talking about the fiscal imbalance. This is not something that a Bloc Québécois MP made up. It is something that was carefully studied by a federalist. The Séguin report unequivocally shows that the federal government is underfunding public services without every paying the political price.
My fear is that this dental program will meet the same fate as health care services. The federal government will set up a program, but it will eventually become underfunded. The provinces will have to manage the program, and they will pay the political price. Meanwhile, the federal government will wash its hands of this program in a few years and will have set another precedent that puts pressure on provincial policies.
878 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues participating in this debate tonight. I really think that this is an important debate for which Canadians deserve to have true facts.
It is no secret that the pandemic has hurt many Canadians, especially those Canadians who have lost their jobs and Canadians who were unable to maintain their benefits. Unfortunately, their children are now paying that cost. It is no secret that, in addition to that, there are nearly 500,000 children in Canada without that care.
We know that we need to have a responsible plan that actually tackles health care and the crisis that we are in. All members of the House need to understand that, when we are talking about health care, we are talking about dental care. We can, in fact, have both.
We can, in fact, work toward a better, stronger, publicly delivered and publicly accessible health care system in Canada, while also delivering a publicly accessible and publicly administered dental care program. We can ensure that Canadians have that possibility. We can also ensure that our workforce in the health care system keeps up by making sure that we make the necessary investments.
This should never be a discussion about either health care or dental care. It can be both. We are the party that commits to both.
To hear members from the Conservative bench talk about how there are already programs in Alberta is a falsehood. It is not true. We know this, for example, from physicians in Alberta.
There is a physician by the name of Dr. Frank Neves out of St. Albert who said that, during the direct loss of employees at certain companies across the province, they had seen an increase in families unable to pay for their kids' dental care, meaning that they are paying out of pocket. He predicted that three out of every 10 clients in St. Albert, Alberta, were paying out of pocket and were unable to keep up. He also cited that children, in many cases, had to find alternative care.
Additionally, we see low-income Canadians, Canadians who are really struggling right now, having to enter emergency rooms because of infections in their mouths.
Samantha Lowe is from the Mustard Seed, an organization that has great credibility in my community and, I am sure, in many other communities across the country represented by members of the House, including Conservative members who want to see this bill die. She said, “Dental care should be part of primary care”.
When we are talking about primary care, we are talking about the lives of Canadians.
Their lives are important, and this is something they have paid into. They have paid their taxes. They have paid through labour. They have paid so much into the creation and prosperity of Canada, and now is the time. We have to do this. The Liberals have promised this for decades. Now we have forced them to do the right thing and finally deliver.
I also want to talk about some additional facts. Métis people across Canada do not have access to non-insured health benefits that are covered by the first nations and Inuit health branch. They do not have the access, whether they are in rural or even urban centres. Métis people have been historically left out and neglected for generations.
I want to talk about, specifically, my own experience being a Métis child in Alberta. I did not have dental care. I could not have gotten access to it. My parents were unable to secure benefits working in job after job. My dad was a carpenter. When a house was built, it was done, and he had to find another contract. My mom bounced from job to job trying to find security in her work, but was unable to do so. Many Métis Canadians know how hard it is to find employment in rural settings.
My parents did everything they could to make sure I had a good life. Many Canadians right now are doing the very same thing, but just like many parents, they had to make a choice. Was it going to be food or was it going to be dental care? My teeth suffered.
Being a member of Parliament today, I have that privilege. I am immensely privileged to stand here in the House to talk about dental care, knowing that I have dental care provided by the taxpayer, by Canadians.
We see that same privilege has been extended to every single member of the House, and has been for some Conservatives for over 20 years. Now, when 500,000 indigenous and non-indigenous low-income Canadians need this support, we are hearing them say no.
What if we said no to their benefits? We would certainly hear from the Conservative bench about how deplorable it would be for them not to get their benefits, but when it comes to giving that benefit to Canadians, to 500,000 children, we hear them deny them. We must not trivialize the reality of good dental care. It provides an immense relief to parents like mine, who cannot give that to their children.
I know what this is going to mean for the families in Edmonton Griesbach. I know what this is going to mean for the families who are struggling right now and the dignity that they want to be able to give their children. There was a saying when I went to high school that if we started our first job interview with a beautiful smile, we would get to the last question. That is true. People in Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, a G7 country, deserve to know that their dental care needs are met. Dental care is health care. It needs to be treated like that.
Tonight I have heard the Conservatives and the Bloc talk numerous times about how great their provinces' programs are. That is all fine and great. Good job, Quebec, but Nunavut does not have that benefit. People in Alberta do not have that benefit. That is the reality facing Canadians right now. We need this House to be united and know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, no matter what jurisdiction they are in, can actually benefit from a dental care program. That is what it means to bring unity to this House, to do things on behalf of regular working Canadians.
When I was elected in my seat of Edmonton Griesbach, I promised my constituents that I would deliver; I would get results. I am certain that every member in this House wants to do the same for their constituents. This bill is one of those bills that directly help regular working Canadians. It is not rocket science. We are making sure there is a national dental care program by 2025 that makes sure every Canadian has access to dental care in Canada. That is a dream New Democrats have been fighting for, for a long time, and we are finally going to see it.
Many folks have tried before, and I want to thank all the past members of Parliament, but especially the Canadians who keep fighting every day to make sure they have the basic necessities for their health care, like dental care. I do not want to see any more stories from surgeons at the Stollery hospital for children, who tell us their number one surgeries are to help children who have infections in their mouths. That is Canada right now. That is downtown Toronto.
We are talking about a very basic level of human dignity that all children should have, that I should have had as a child, and that many children right now deserve to have. We cannot neglect the fact that people in Canada need this benefit. We need this now, and these children need to know we are there for them.
If we do not pass this benefit, we are going to see thousands of children continue to live without that care, resulting in costs down the road. When we are talking about costs down the road, we are talking about a hospital bed, $3,000 a day, when we could have solved that with a cleaning, with cavities being filled, with a visit to the dentist. These are cost-saving measures. These are important measures for our economy.
I want to make certain that Canadians know that New Democrats have their back and are not going to end this fight. We are going to make sure we end the block put by the Conservative Party on this bill. We are going to get this to committee, and we are going to make sure we get this benefit into the hands of Canadians. That is why I am here, and that is why New Democrats are here.
1491 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his advice to seek provincial office. I would encourage the member to do the same. It is no secret that the Bloc Québécois's interests are narrow and for the purpose of Quebec only.
I will address the question fully and invite the member to read the national health care act. We have passed it in the House, and we are going to do it again.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑31 talks about housing. In Quebec, 87,000 people are currently living in social housing with incomes under $20,000, or $35,000 for families. These folks will not have access to the $500 because they pay less than 30% of their income for housing, thanks to the programs that Quebec created because of the federal government's withdrawal from social housing funding 30 years ago.
Does my colleague not agree with many people in Quebec that, instead of investing $500 and sending it to people, we would be better off investing in structural, long-term and sustainable programs to truly house those with inadequate housing in Quebec and in the rest of Canada?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are working together with all the provinces and territories to ensure that all children in Canada can have the same plan.
We are also working with Quebec, which is a model for all of Canada. We are lucky that Quebec's dental plan already covers children 12 and under to a certain extent. Let us follow Quebec's lead.
However, is there any difference between a child from Quebec and a child from Calgary or Prince Edward Island? To me, a 12-year-old child who needs dental care, whether they are from one end of the country or the other, deserves to have the same service.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want the House to remain calm as I make this statement, which I do not say too often. The comments made tonight from the Bloc Québécois are exactly the argument that we are making as well, which is that a double layer of bureaucracy and an Ottawa-knows-best approach will not work.
When it comes to the dental programs, we do not need to create another layer of bureaucracy when it comes to health spending. We can allow provinces, provide proper transfers, reduce red tape, reduce bureaucracy and have more government-efficient spending, including allowing the Province of Quebec to run its own health care programs. That is not unreasonable. I think most Canadians agree.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about housing. She said that it is a challenge for her, that it is a problem in her riding, and that it is an important issue, and she is right about that.
Today, I was talking to someone who is very involved in the fight for new social housing in Quebec. This person is very involved with Quebeckers who are less fortunate and poorly housed. This person was pinning a lot of hope on the NDP-Liberal agreement. They thought that if the NDP had signed an agreement with the Liberals, then it must mean that something was going to be done about housing. They were expecting investments. When I told them about the $500 under the Canada housing benefit, they were devastated. They said that this was not the right thing to do and that new housing units need to be built. That is $500 being spent for nothing. Next year, we will have to start over. More housing needs to be built for the future. They were just devastated.
What does my colleague think about that?
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
