SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 180 - Apr/19/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/19/23 4:03:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1281, 1285, 1287 and 1288.

15 words

Apr/19/23 4:04:05 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1281—

Questioner: Bonita Zarrillo

With regard to the legislative review of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) what are the details of the engagement and communication plans for the review, including (i) how the public and stakeholders are being consulted, (ii) who has been consulted to date, (iii) who has not yet been consulted and what are the timelines for those consultations to be completed; (b) is any part of the review conducted by external contractors and, if so, by whom; (c) what is the scope of the review and does it include a review of the mandate of the CIB; and (d) what acute issues, if any, were considered when defining the scope of the review mentioned in (c)?

Question No. 1285—

Questioner: Karen Vecchio

With regard to the federal government’s funding of Gymnastics Canada being frozen in July 2022: (a) what was the original reason the government froze this funding; and (b) despite allegations of abuse and maltreatment within the sport still being unsettled, has this funding been reinstated and, if so, (i) on what date, (ii) for what reason?

Question No. 1287—

Questioner: Brad Vis

With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the government’s 50-30 Challenge: (a) how many organizations applied to be a 50-30 Challenge Ecosystem Partner; (b) how were the five successful candidates chosen as Ecosystem Partners; (c) how was the distribution of the $28.5 million funding to the Ecosystem Partners determined; (d) how are the Ecosystem Partners expected to spend their funding and what accountability mechanisms are in place; (e) how many dollars have been spent on the 50-30 Challenge by the Ecosystem Partners as of March 1, 2023; (f) what projects and supports to the 50-30 Challenge have been made available to 50-30 Challenge participants to meet their diversity and inclusion goals; (g) what are the Ecosystem Partners expected to achieve; and (h) how will the government track the success rate of the 50-30 Challenge?

Question No. 1288—

Questioner: Louise Chabot

With regard to the amendments to the Canada Labour Code respecting fair treatment as regards wages, more specifically the changes concerning equal treatment provided by the Budget Implementation Act 2018, No. 2, S.C., c. 27, in sections 452 and 461 of Subdivision A of Division 15 of Part 4 of the Act: (a) has the department finished its consultations on the development of regulations; (b) can we have a summary of the report on these consultations; (c) has the department started drafting the regulations; and (d) has a date or timeline for the coming into force of this provision been set and, if so, what is this date?

2214 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/19/23 4:04:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Question No. 1286 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

34 words

Apr/19/23 4:04:19 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1286—

Questioner: Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

With regard to government expenditures in the electoral districts of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane–Matapédia, Manicouagan, Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and Papineau, for fiscal years 2020-21 and 2021-22, broken down by electoral district: (a) what is the total amount for each fiscal year; (b) what is the detailed breakdown of the amounts in (a) by department, Crown corporation, agency or organization; and (c) what are the grants and contributions made, broken down by funding source?

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/19/23 4:04:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

25 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/19/23 4:04:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

32 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/19/23 4:04:30 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

20 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Apr/19/23 4:04:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the interim Ethics Commissioner has resigned that role, effective today. As a result, there are decisions that the office cannot proceed with, which are based upon functions that only the commissioner can undertake. After the politicization of that role by the Liberal government, the office remains paralyzed. The official opposition invites the government to meaningfully consult with recognized parties on an appointee whose appointment avoids even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

83 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/19/23 4:05:15 p.m.
Watch

That was not a point of order, but I will take it under advisement.

14 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Apr/19/23 4:05:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, please note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. We got another budget. When I saw the budget, I remembered two things. First, when I was an economics professor at CEGEP and university, I had a tradition. When the budget was tabled, back when I was not in politics, I would take it and do an economic analysis of it. When I saw this budget, the first thing I thought was, thank god I will not have to analyze it in front of 70 students, because there is really not much to say about it, from an economic standpoint. It is devoid of inspiration. It is as if it was as easy for the Liberal government to find inspiration as to do a 5,000-piece puzzle while wearing boxing gloves. The second thing I thought about was my leader, and what an extraordinary leader he is. The members opposite are laughing because they know that I am right. I thank them for admitting it. In 2021, the government kicked things off with the throne speech. It took some time before the House came back; it had other things to do, I guess, but it took a few months before the ball got rolling. The House reconvened. That morning, I was not fashionable, but we were finally back. Then, there was the throne speech. I will never forget it. The leader stood up and said that the government before us was tired. Let us think about that. The government had just been elected, it gave a throne speech and it was already tired. When I saw the budget, I thought that it was the budget of a tired government. There are two very striking things in this budget. The first is that the Liberals bought themselves a majority yet again. They had already done it once, but they arranged for their good friend the NDP to support them until death do they part. What do people say when they get married? An hon. member: For better or for worse. Mr. Alain Therrien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is with the government for better or for worse. The government accepts the fact that the west has dirty oil and the NDP agrees. They shrug and they are happy, because they are buddies. To ensure that the NDP will stay with them, the government gave them a $13-billion gift of dental insurance. Is that bad? Not necessarily, but it depends on how. I have been in politics for 10 years. I am old now, and I have seen a few bills in my time. I would say I have seen quite a few. I think the worst bill I ever saw in my life was the dental care bill, which was introduced last fall. It was a disaster. I could not believe my eyes. I told myself it was impossible. In the end, I just had to cover my eyes. To me, it made no sense, it was completely ridiculous, but the government was pandering to the NDP. It hurriedly came up with a lot of nonsense, like telling people they would get $650 for going to the dentist, making an appointment or just driving by. Otherwise, they get nothing. It was totally preposterous. Now, months later, the government has finally realized fraud is rampant. That was obvious. They could have just asked the opposition. We would have told them right from the start. This is cause for concern. Now we come to the budget. It is stressful to hear the government say it is going to expand the scope of dental care. Not only does this trespass on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, it penalizes Quebec and the provinces that offered more generous dental insurance. There was no compensation for that. The message was that if they already had dental insurance, too bad. They would have to pay anyway, for nothing. At least the bill is not tabled yet. Do we dare hope that the Liberals will respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces when they draft it? When they put their glasses on and settle down to write that bill, I hope they will respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The Liberals are centralizers. They like to stretch out their tentacles and lay claim to taxes. They like to spend. The New Democrats are Liberals in a hurry. They get up at night to strategize about centralization. They call each other to talk about their dream of a world without provinces. That is their aim. If the two parties get together to cook up dental insurance, I hope they do not forget that the provinces and Quebec exist. That is my hope. That is my first point, that this dental insurance looks more like majority insurance. My second point is that there are priorities. If we go outside and walk around and chat with people, there are some things we cannot miss. They are so obvious that it seems odd they did not see them. There is nothing in the budget, or very little, and what is there is done wrong. These priorities are not included in the budget, despite what we had hoped. Health care is a priority for Quebec. We can already hear them saying that maybe the Quebec government is not so good at managing health care, and so on, and yet, all the provinces are having problems with health care. Has it not occurred to the government that perhaps the real problem lies somewhere above the level of Quebec and all the provincial governments? Does it take an honorary degree to understand that the problem might be elsewhere and that the provinces and Quebec all have the same problem? It is called the federal government. Everyone was practically climbing over each other to tell the federal government to increase health transfers to the provinces and Quebec. We said we wanted 35%, for starters. In the end, the federal government told Quebec and the provinces that it would give only one-sixth of the amount we were asking for. In the case of Quebec, instead of getting $6 billion, we were told that we would get $1 billion, and there was no guarantee that there would be enough growth to meet even that commitment. That means that the transfers increased from 22% to 24%. People were clapping and knocking their glasses off in their excitement. One person was even doing cartwheels in the living room while eating broccoli. Everyone needs to calm down. When this government took office, transfers were already at 24% of total health care funding. The government lowered them to 22% and then raised them back up to 24%. What a victory. Great job. What we are seeing now is that the Liberals are offering only one-sixth of what was requested, even though they say in the budget that the health care system is dysfunctional. They figured that out all by themselves and yet they are only giving Quebec and the provinces one-sixth of what they asked for. That does not make any sense. Speaking of priorities, housing is definitely one of them. That is a no-brainer. We hear about it almost everyday on the news. There is also the labour shortage. The government is saying that we need to find a solution to the labour shortage, but did we hear any solutions out of the mouths of anyone on that side of the House when they talked about the budget? No, we have not. There is one solution that is pretty simple. The government could tell certain people, like seniors aged 65 to 75, that they could be entitled to exemptions and tax incentives if they returned to work. That is the carrot policy, or the incentive policy, as my colleague said. However, that is not being proposed. What are the Liberals doing? They are making seniors poorer. That is not a carrot-and-stick policy, it is a stick-and-bludgeon policy. They are making seniors poorer. The first time I asked a minister about what was happening with seniors, he said that if they do not have enough money, then they should go back to work. I wondered if he had skipped breakfast that morning, because he could not possibly have meant what he said. He did, however, because we heard him repeat the same thing later. In any case, my colleague from Shefford will speak at length about seniors and the fact that this issue is missing from the budget. We might talk about the policy on aerospace, Quebec's primary source of exports. Quebec is one of the only places in the world where it is possible to build a plane from start to finish. There are three places in the world where this is possible, and Quebec is one of them. I will say in closing that a government is supposed to have a vision to present in the budget. The government is tired and worn out. It no longer has a vision. I wonder what it is still doing here.

1535 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/19/23 4:16:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong on so many counts. This budget is indeed a reflection of the priorities that Canadians have expressed to the government in many different ways. I would highlight what the member said about the dental legislation we brought in last year being the worst piece of legislation he has ever seen as a parliamentarian. That particular program, which the member sees as useless legislation, has benefited 250,000 children in Canada. Many of the initiatives, whether we are talking about the grocery rebate or the expansion of the dental program for seniors, would directly benefit from the budget. Why is the Bloc being so narrow-minded and following such a separatist agenda that it does not see the good that is being presented in this budget? For the sake of doing what is right, the Bloc should vote in favour of the budget so Canadians from coast to coast to coast would receive the badly needed benefits this budget would provide.

166 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Apr/19/23 4:17:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, did I say anything about independence? We are a part of Canada while awaiting independence, and we have a situation where there are problems caused in part by the government's inaction. There comes a time when we must ask ourselves if the Liberals are going to wake up. We are not talking about independence. We are talking about a government that should be focused on the issues that are important to Quebeckers. That is why we are here. If the government wants to know what Quebeckers want and need, it should listen to the Bloc Québécois. What Quebeckers want, as I said, are health transfers and measures to address the labour shortage. It is time to sink or swim, and the Liberals have done absolutely nothing. That is all. All we were asking for was for them to listen to Quebeckers and work to meet their needs. That is all.

157 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Apr/19/23 4:18:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they could also listen to the Conservative Party and the members from Quebec who are there to represent Quebeckers too. I would like to ask my colleague a question. He spoke at length about the Liberals' will and centralist tendencies throughout the years. We know that the Liberals want to manage and control everything from Ottawa and leave very little to the provinces. There is something else the Liberals are currently doing, which is putting Canadians further into debt. I know that my colleague dreams of independence for Quebec. Does he believe that his dream is realistic, given the share of the debt Quebec is being burdened with by the Liberals?

113 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Apr/19/23 4:18:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my worthy colleague for his question. He makes me dream of independence. We are talking about the public debt. It is simply unbelievable that there is a fiscal imbalance in Canada. The money is in Ottawa and the needs are in the provinces and in Quebec. There is a consensus on that. Although the government has the financial means, which, in a way, it has taken from the provinces, it is incapable of balancing the budget. That is very worrisome. No one wins with such a huge debt. It is unbelievable because the fiscal imbalance favours the government, and yet, it still manages to go into debt.

111 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/19/23 4:19:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed by this budget, because there are at least four new subsidies for oil and gas companies. What does the member from La Prairie think about the fact that, in the midst of a climate crisis, there are new subsidies for oil and gas companies?

51 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Apr/19/23 4:20:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did not address this issue. I think that the member will agree with us. Sustainable development and the green economy are very important to the Bloc Québécois. There is little in the budget in that regard; worse, oil companies are being subsidized, when we should be decreasing oil production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One does not need to be a math whiz to understand that the less oil we produce, the less pollution and the lower greenhouse gas emissions there will be. However, when the oil industry is being subsidized as the Liberals are doing and continue to do in this budget, it goes against what the general public wants. They want to ensure a better future for the next generation. I fully agree with the member.

136 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/19/23 4:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to rise after my colleague from La Prairie. I listened intently to his speech. As the critic for seniors, I could not turn down the opportunity to talk about their situation in the House and, more importantly, to respond to a budget that cares nothing about them. I could not turn down the opportunity to set the record straight. The Bloc Québécois proposed a number of measures and made clear requests to the Minister of Finance. I will focus on three points here. First, the budget does not provide for an adequate increase in health transfers. Second, it says nothing about EI reform. Finally, while the government continues to claim it has been generous to seniors, there are no new specific and ongoing measures for seniors in this budget. I would like to start by pointing out that the government is not increasing the health transfers to any significant degree. The jurisdictional interference also continues. This issue is important, and it is a major public concern, especially among seniors' groups. FADOQ representatives even turned out for a conference I recently organized on the financial situation of seniors. They came to call attention to the urgent need for the federal government to make its contribution and increase health transfers to 35%, with no strings attached. They clearly understood that this jurisdiction belongs to Quebec, not the federal government. Moving on to the second part of my presentation, the budget makes no provision for any major EI reform before 2030, despite the government's promises. The government also refuses to write off the EI fund's pandemic-related debt. As a result, premiums will have to increase and benefits will have to decrease for the fund to achieve a $24‑billion surplus by 2030. How great it would have been to have a little money left over to reform federal services. As the status of women critic, I consider this to be a major reform from a feminist perspective. We know that 60% of workers are not eligible for employment insurance, and that is concerning. It is primarily women who work in unstable jobs, who do not work full time because they have to do invisible work at home with their families and who have difficulty accumulating the hours required to be eligible for EI. I would like to point out that on Tuesday, April 4, groups in Quebec, including AFEAS, campaigned for a national invisible work day that would be held every year on the first Tuesday in April. This kind of day is needed to encourage real reflection on this issue, which also affects family caregivers and volunteers. How can we do more to recognize what these people do? My thoughts go out to them and I thank them, especially those who are being honoured this week as part of National Volunteer Week. I salute them. I am now coming to my third point, and I will devote the rest of my speech to the lack of measures for seniors and their precarious financial situation. I actually held a conference on that issue back home in Granby on February 21, with seniors' groups from all over Quebec. I want to talk about some of the issues that were raised during that day of reflection. First, I want to point out that while wages are rising, old age security is not increasing as much or as quickly. Currently, if someone is 75 years old and receives nothing but old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, their annual income is $20,574.24. Given today's inflation, who can really live on that? That level of income puts them below the official federal poverty line, as determined by the market basket measure, or MBM. In response to this statistic, the symposium participants that day said that the federal government needs to increase old age security benefits. Add inflation to that, and old age security is not enough to live on; it is not a replacement for working income. As for income replacement in retirement through public pension plans, right now, a person earning the average wage in Quebec will have an income replacement rate of only 41%. The Quebec pension plan replaces about 25% of the average wage. As for old age security, it barely replaces 15% of the average wage. Sadly, since wages are rising faster than the consumer price index—by about one percentage point per year—this federal program will in future contribute less in terms of replacing working income in retirement. The federal government must do better. Finally, we must also revise the indexation method for old age security. The Association québécoise de défense des droits des aînés, or AQDR, agrees, and does not believe that it is adequate. Furthermore, the AQDR also believes that old age security is not increasing fast enough to replace employment income, which is rising faster than public plan replacement rates. Everyone is talking about wage increases right now. Seniors are finding it very difficult to save, especially older women who, over the course of their lives, have greater difficulty setting aside money and saving to retire in dignity. The old age security pension, or OAS, and the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, are insufficient to meet the needs of seniors. Let us not forget that, in July 2022, the annual income of an individual under the age of 75 receiving only their pension and the GIS would fall below the official poverty line in Canada, based on the market basket measure, or MBM. That is significant in an inflationary context. This index, which is calculated by Statistics Canada, seeks to establish the cost of a basket of goods for a modest basic standard of living. We are not talking about trips down south or luxury items; we are talking about basic needs. In 2022, MBM thresholds were between $20,796 and $22,382 for singles, depending on the region in which they lived. The solution, therefore, is simple: Income levels for all seniors aged 65 and older need to be increased. That day, we also talked about the implementation of a tax credit for experienced workers in the context of the labour shortage, a tax credit for working seniors who want to stay on the job or for seniors who decide to go back to work. That day, we also talked about health transfer increases. I just wanted to point that out. The federal government needs to significantly increase health transfers so that the Quebec and provincial governments can make major investments in their health care systems. Another item that was discussed that day and that should be noted is the fact that inflation is seriously eroding seniors' purchasing power. It would have been a good idea for the Liberal government to at least support those who cannot afford to be patient. FADOQ expected Ottawa to walk the talk when it came to increasing the guaranteed income supplement. Let us not forget that those who receive the GIS are some of the most disadvantaged members of our society. FADOQ believes that the government could have taken these additional measures. Another example would be to make the Canada caregiver credit refundable. Given the ongoing labour shortage, the FADOQ network also suggested that a tax credit to encourage seniors to keep working would be a great idea. The timing is perfect. Even though it was another thing the federal government had promised, this tax credit was not announced in the last budget. To continue on the theme of the budget, the grocery rebate is actually a one-time payment through the GST tax credit. Although it is a decent measure, the Bloc Québécois hoped that low-income families and individuals would get better government support during this inflation crisis. For 2023, the amount remains a one-time payment. It does nothing to solve the longer-term problem. My last point is that, despite everything, the long-term financial outlook remains the same. The ratio of the federal public debt relative to the GDP will continue its downward trend. Ottawa plans to completely pay off its debt within 30 to 40 years. The federal budget confirms the Parliamentary Budget Officer's long-term forecasts. Beyond the short term, the federal financial situation will keep improving. Over the long term, the financial situation of the provinces and Quebec will keep deteriorating. The money is in Ottawa, but the needs, in areas like health and education, are in Quebec. In the short term, we must also deal with the global economic downturn, high interest rates worldwide and inflation that is still too high. In conclusion, I could also have spoken about the lack of support for the next generation of farmers and the greenwashing that the budget also contains. It maintains the fossil fuel subsidies, subsidizing oil companies, as my colleague from La Prairie mentioned. The budget talks about hydrogen, meaning dirty hydrogen, about carbon capture and about small nuclear reactors, even though experts have condemned these measures. As I said, it is greenwashing. These are not measures that will help us seriously kick-start the shift we need to make to fight climate change. In short, the spending in this budget is unwise and insufficient for those who are truly in need. That is why, in closing, I will proudly say that I will soon be introducing a bill to abolish the injustice created by the 10% increase in old age security only for those 75 and over. We must ensure that all seniors, when they turn 65, can receive this little additional boost, but especially a boost in the long term and not a one-time cheque or, as the government has done all too often, a little pre-election cheque that looks good. With this bill, we want to increase the threshold to the point where seniors can work without their GIS being clawed back. This is about common sense and dignity for seniors. Even the economic sector is calling for this. Let us all work together. There are also the demands from the National Assembly. We must meet people's needs. We must work together to improve the current situation, which, as we know, is not easy for everyone, especially the seniors who really need to be listened to and heard a little more.

1752 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/19/23 4:31:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the accuracy of information is important when a member speaks. For example, the member talks about the old age supplement, the OAS, and gives the impression that it is not being increased. However, it is actually increased multiple times a year depending on rates of inflation. The member says that we are not supporting seniors. However, if we take a look at the dental plan, the expansion is, in good part, for seniors. We could talk about the rebate the member made reference to. Seniors will benefit from that particular rebate, not to mention the climate action rebate. What about the $198 billion going toward public health over the next 10 years, a commitment of generational support for health care? One has to be pretty naive to believe that would not help seniors. How can the member stand in her place and give the false impression that this budget is not supporting seniors when, in fact, it is supporting seniors? I believe she knows that.

167 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Apr/19/23 4:32:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned the importance of setting the record straight, I was referring to the type of comments the member just made. I would tell the member to refer to the press release from FADOQ. Yes, FADOQ acknowledges the one-time grocery rebate. Who could be against apple pie? Everyone is in favour of apple pie. FADOQ says that it is indeed a good measure. However, FADOQ goes on to say that the Liberal government could have done more, that it could have increased the guaranteed income supplement, that it broke its promise to bring in a tax credit for experienced workers, and that it could have taken this opportunity to increase old age security by 10%. I listen to seniors who say that there were not enough measures in this budget. As for dental care, that is Quebec's responsibility. The National Assembly of Quebec is calling for Quebec to get the money to run the dental program itself. That is what the National Assembly of Quebec is asking for. As far as the environment is concerned, how can we really talk about public health when the government keeps funding the oil companies that emit greenhouse gases? That is greenwashing, as the member said. There is greenwashing, but the member is also playing fast and loose with information on seniors. A one-time cheque does not help seniors in the long term.

235 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/19/23 4:34:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I have a great deal of respect for her. I know that she works hard to help people. I know her riding of Shefford well. For years, I drove through Shefford almost every day, certainly every week, to get from the Eastern Townships to Montreal. I know the needs of her riding well. I also know how well my colleague represents the people in her riding. Thanks to the NDP's efforts, we are now seeing hundreds of children in the riding of Shefford, in Granby and elsewhere, who have already benefited from the dental program that the NDP forced the government to put in place. As we know, the next phase of this dental care program will benefit people with disabilities and seniors. Families and young people will be able to benefit from it. I just want to ask a question of my colleague, for whom, once again, I have great respect. Does she think it is a good thing that people in her riding who did not have access to dental care before now have access to the dental program?

194 words