44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/27/23 10:36:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what good the dental plan is when my seniors cannot even afford to pay for gasoline to go to the grocery store to buy groceries. They cannot afford groceries. The rebate does not offset the cost of the carbon tax, heating or medical expenses. The member is talking about dental, which is great, but seniors cannot afford to eat, so they are not going to have dental problems.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 10:55:34 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the area I represent has over 300 years of francophone culture. The citizens I represent there are now going to be able to get dental care, and we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the country. What would the member have to say to those people if we were to not do a budget that includes child care or access to dental care for children, persons with disabilities and seniors, in particular, given that we have some of the highest rates of poverty? I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 10:56:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it needs to be said: We always get the impression that the NDP is in the wrong Parliament. There is a party in Quebec called Québec Solidaire that is proposing this type of measure. It is working out quite well because when we talk about dental care, that is part of Quebec's responsibility for health care.
Obviously, I am not against dental care, because it is extremely important. What we keep saying is that Ottawa does not run any hospitals, it does not pay for any doctors and it does not train any nurses. It does not have the authority to talk about these jurisdictions. If it wants to create dental care programs, the government should send money to the provinces, and the provinces will take care of it.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 11:08:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is wild. She did not correct her comment that she does not need dental care, that she is having trouble. That she does not need to no have pain and that she does not deserve to have a smile is beside the point.
This is from a member who represented a party that was going to increase the age that people could collect OAS and GIS, from age 65 to 67. This is from a party that voted against increases to OAS, that voted against increases to GIS, that voted against cutting taxes on the middle class so we could raise it on the wealthiest 1%. It is a party that votes against dental care for seniors.
It is absolutely shocking that the hon. member would stand and want to correct her comments when they are flawed to their core.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 3:28:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things my NDP colleagues and I are very proud of is that we have brought in Canada's first-ever dental care program on a national basis. Last year, of course, it covered children under the age of 12. Now it would be expanded to children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 3:29:17 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate that, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying, one of the proudest accomplishments my NDP colleagues and I have is expanding dental care to low-income Canadians, who have never had the opportunity to afford to go to a dentist. That program is now going to expand to seniors and to persons with disabilities. These are the people who live on the margins of our society and need this.
I hope my hon. colleague from the Conservatives will recognize that good oral health care is a part of health care. Will she commit, along with her caucus, to keeping that program? Will she at least see the benefits it has for her constituents?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 3:29:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am familiar with dental plans, and what they have put forth is not a dental plan. A dental plan matches codes with procedures.
This is dental CERB, and we are still sorting out the problems from the CERB, which went forth initially without the necessary screening. Now we have people who were given all these thousands of dollars who need to find ways of paying it back because it was not given properly.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:02:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member about the structural investments we need in these budgets, and that is why I am happy to say the NDP has solidified structural investments in dental care. I am also proud to say that the NDP is putting in place structural benefits for child care, which Quebec has benefited from for over 25 years. I commend it on that.
I want to ask the member specifically about dental care. Does he support at least that part of the budget? The second piece is the red dress alert. Does the member support that?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:03:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to dental care, the program got off to a very poor start. The government rushed to get it up and running.
Quebec asked for the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could actually use that money to improve its own program. The Canada Revenue Agency showed that the project was off to a bad start, because there was no way to confirm whether the $650 given to people was being used appropriately.
When it comes to health care, we cannot afford to waste any money anywhere. That is my answer.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:46:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. There are many things in this budget that are very good for Canadians. I wanted to ask about her opinion on the dental plan, which is now free for children under 12. By the end of this year, we will be expanding it to those with disabilities, seniors and those under 18.
What does the member think about providing this plan for Canadians?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when looking at the budget, I think we all need to be concerned about children and what the future will be for them. On the dental plan, I believe in provincial jurisdiction. Dental is a health care issue. I believe that we need to allow provinces to lead the way on health care issues. I feel that the Liberal government has really waded into provincial jurisdiction way too many times and way too much.
I appreciate the member's question. When we are talking about children, I know that she heard when I mentioned there were multiple deaths by stabbing, notably from those repeat violent offenders I mentioned and talked about at length. Those were children who were murdered. What is her government doing about that in terms of protecting those children and ensuring their future? It is not doing a lot.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to bring the discussion back to the budget.
This budget is certainly not as strong a budget as one that an NDP government would table, but I am supportive of portions of it, and those portions are very important to Canadians. Because of the NDP, this budget includes structural, social supports that will increase the well-being of Canadians forever. It will strengthen the health and safety of Canadians with the biggest investment in health care in over 50 years. I am talking about the dental care program.
NDP members of the House are proud of their work to bring a universal dental care program to Canadians. Already, the Canada dental benefit has helped more than 240,000 children in this country. In 2023, by the end of this year, coverage will start for uninsured Canadians under 18, persons with disabilities and seniors who have a family income of less than $90,000. This is important.
There were 700 people in my riding in the month of March alone asking for more information about this dental program. Seniors who were in my office just a few weeks ago talked about the pain they have been in for over two years and could not afford to have a root canal and dental surgery. This is a very important program for Canadians.
I would note that the largest day surgery for kids in this country is for the treatment of cavities. It is just not fair. If there was preventative care, we would have a lot fewer surgeries, and we would have a lot fewer children having to go through those surgeries at such a young age.
Second, there are the investments in health care in this budget, which we can thank the NDP for. There is an immediate $2 billion Canada health care transfer to address immediate pressures on our health care system. Canadians want this. We are an aging population. Canadians are worried whether they are going to be able to access care.
I am from Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra in B.C., and residents are in my office many times asking about health care and finding a doctor. People are concerned. They want to know that when they need health care, it is there for them. I am happy to see those transfers here, and this budget is important for those transfers.
I want to take a moment to talk about the feminist lens on this budget and how important health care is to women in this country. It underpins the economy and has for a very long time. We talk about the fact that nursing is a very gendered profession. We know that long-term care and child care are very gendered professions.
I also want to take a moment for a shout-out to my NDP colleague for Winnipeg Centre who is fighting right now for decent wages for health care workers as we work through Bill C-35. It is because of their gender that women have been underpaid, undervalued and under-respected in the health care system in this country, and it continues today.
As well, I will take a moment here to shout out to immigrant women who underpin the economy and have underpinned the economy in the health care sector and in child care. They are undervalued, underpaid and under-respected. I really hope that this government will take some action on making sure that there is status for all of these immigrant women who have come here to support the Canadian economy, but have not had access to the benefits and status that they deserve.
We would be supporting this budget on those things alone, which are so important. However, I want to add the piece on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, again, to put that gender lens on this very important budget.
This budget makes important investments in implementing the national action plan to end the tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, including increased funding for indigenous-led projects, for safer communities, helping families access information about their missing or murdered loved ones, ensuring that families and survivors are at the centre of implementing the national action plan, and establishing a standing federal, provincial, territorial indigenous table on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, which will provide a specific forum to take action on areas of shared roles and responsibilities, including prioritizing a red dress alert system. This was also an initiative of the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre.
This budget should be supported because we need to support indigenous communities and murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. I will mention today on this budget that the member for Nunavut was in the House yesterday talking about the need for more investments for indigenous, Métis and Inuit women in this country. It is not acceptable that this budget has not prioritized more housing.
For all of these investments, the NDP will be supporting the budget, but it does not mean that we are satisfied with it. Despite NDP wins, the Liberals continue to drag their heels when it comes to making other important investments. I refer again to indigenous housing. There is a serious lack of investment in housing for indigenous communities in this budget. The Liberals have not tackled the housing crisis at all in this budget. They have not taken it seriously.
It has been mentioned in this House that reforming employment insurance and modernizing the system is missing in this budget, as is truly addressing disability poverty. As the critic for disability inclusion, I will share this message with the government as I am standing in the House today. It was devastating news to the disability community that the Canada disability benefit did not have financial supports for them in this budget.
As I talk about what is missing in the budget, I want to revisit the feminist lens on employment insurance. Employment insurance reform is not in this budget. When employment insurance was first visualized and imagined, the employment rate for women was less than 50%. Employment insurance was built for men; it was not built for women. Now employment rates for men and women are the same in this country, yet women continue to be discriminated against through the system, and it is just not acceptable that a feminist government would not have brought modernization to employment insurance.
I want to go to poverty and disability poverty. We know that almost a million people in this country with a disability are living in poverty. I know there is a one-time grocery rebate in the bill, and the Liberals talk about how it is something that the disability community should be able to rest on. That is not true. It is not acceptable. A one-time grocery rebate is not a structural change in addressing poverty in this country, but the Canada disability benefit is. The government needs to get serious about that income support and reducing poverty among persons with disabilities in this country. We see it happening in our communities every day. More people have to go to food banks.
There was a study out recently on women with disabilities and their ability to earn an income in this country. They are disproportionately marginalized from adequate employment because of their gender and the intersection with their disability. The government needs to get serious about the Canada disability benefit and lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.
I am going to close with the biggest gaping hole in this budget, which is housing. I have mentioned the investments in indigenous housing, but as my colleague, the member for Nunavut, has said over and again in this House, it is only a tiny chip on what we need in this country with respect to housing. I would say, as the government is sitting here, that housing also needs infrastructure. We have this market-driven lens on housing that is all about how many units of housing we can build and ensuring that the developers are making money. I understand we need a housing supply in this country, but we need infrastructure investments as well so we can get adequate housing built all across the country.
I will close by saying that Canadians will benefit from this budget. The NDP will be supporting it, but let us get real about housing and indigenous housing in this country.
1417 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 7:17:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure, but the member might have missed when I mentioned that just in the month of March, 700 people reached out to my office for information about the Canada dental program. Dental care is health care, and we need to keep people out of the hospital when they can have dental care to proactively look after their health. In the month of March, 700 people in my riding reached out for additional information, in need of dental care.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and make my own contribution to the debate on Bill C-47 tonight.
Elsewhere, I have spoken more at length about some of the things I think are commendable in the budget, including another doubling of the GST rebate, which is an important way to help Canadians who are struggling the most with the cost of inflation without returning more money to the pockets of Canadians for whom extra spending might be inflationary. A lot of private sector economists have recognized the virtue of this approach the NDP pioneered and has managed to extend in the budget here.
I have talked about the importance of dental care and the good it will do for millions of Canadians to be able to finally access dental care when they have not had that privilege before. It is something that should not be a privilege, but should be a right for every Canadian wherever they are in the country.
I have talked also about an important step, not a step that meets the need in any way for indigenous people, who are struggling, like other Canadians, with the housing crisis, but in an even more acute way with more challenges for how to deliver housing properly. Over $4 billion was invested in the last 12 months to an indigenous-led strategy where indigenous people themselves will be making decisions about how better to house their people in urban, rural and northern areas.
There are some important labour conditions on federal funding for the new energy economy, ensuring that public dollars that are invested in that new energy economy do not just go to large corporations and get siphoned out of the country, but actually go to Canadian workers, by requiring those companies to pay prevailing wages, not just the hourly wage but the wage package, which includes benefits and pension amounts, to their workers in order to qualify for that federal funding. There will be two seats for labour on the board of the growth fund that the Liberal government is establishing to ensure that workers and their interests are represented in the investment decisions of that fund.
Those are just some of the things the NDP has pushed for in the budget, which we think are going to make a positive difference in the lives of Canadians.
I have also talked about many of the things that are not in the budget that ought to have been, including urgent reform to the employment insurance system, which the Liberal government has promised now for close to eight years and has not done. In the meantime, it has actually revolutionized the EI system and completely changed it, and then it came back full circle to the EI system that the Harper government left in 2015. We have made no progress, despite years of promises and a demonstration that the government can do it.
The Liberals did do it. They had a minimum benefit. They had one universal qualifying threshold with low hours. They had a higher income replacement rate for many people on the program. They had a lot of the things EI needs in order to be a successful program that is there for Canadians when they most need it, which incidentally is in a period of recession, which the budget says is coming.
When will the employment insurance reform come? The Liberals know where the account is, because they took $25 billion of CERB debt that does not belong there and plunked it right in there, ensuring the premiums for workers and employers will go up consistently for the next seven years, trying to pay down a $25-billion debt that does not belong there in the first place, so it is certainly not because they do not know about EI or they do not know where to find the account.
Up to now, over $60 billion has been taken out of the EI operating account by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. As far as I am concerned, adding $25 billion of debt is another expenditure that does not belong on the EI account, and we are now in the territory of about $85 billion the Liberal and Conservative governments have taken from EI ratepayers they never had any right to in the first place. The EI account would be in very good shape and perfectly capable of sustaining the kinds of reforms we need to have for the sake of Canadian workers if that money had not been taken out of there in the first place.
That is a perfect example of what is not in this budget that ought to be, and Canadians can count on New Democrats to continue to press the government to get the job done, just as it should get the job done on housing. I talked a bit about a modest plan, when it comes to indigenous housing, in terms of allocating some funding in the budget. It is nowhere enough, and that is just for the needs in indigenous communities, never mind the amount of non-market housing we need to build in order to meet the needs of people right across the country from coast to coast to coast.
It is not just about spending money. It is also about taking regulatory action in order to constrain the investment activity that is happening from private actors with deep pockets all over the country that is driving up the cost of housing, whether it is driving up the cost of rental housing for Canadians who need affordable rental housing or whether it is driving up the cost of a home that Canadians would aspire to own. In either case, it is a problem. We need to see a government that is willing to take action. I have talked elsewhere about the kinds of things New Democrats believe can be done by the government that would not cost a dime to taxpayers, in order to relieve some of that investment pressure that is driving up houses in the real estate market.
There has been a fair bit of debate tonight about the budget, rightly so. We have heard a lot about the carbon tax and inflation. These are important debates and I respect how people are being affected by inflation, certainly. I see it in my own community.
We are not in any way immune to the rise in the use of food banks and people having to make tough choices, but I do want to talk a little bit about the nature of inflation, because when we listen to Liberals and Conservatives debate inflation, there is something that never comes up.
Again, this is what they share in common with housing. They do not want to talk about the role that deep-pocketed investors are playing in driving up the cost of housing for Canadians. When we talk about inflation more generally, they do not want to talk about the role that corporate Canada has been playing in jacking up prices for Canadians.
There have been reports out, more than one, that say that up to 25% of the inflation that Canadians have experienced is related precisely to excessive profits by corporations.
What do we mean by excessive profits? We mean profits over the prepandemic baseline, an increase in the rate of profit for these companies. The oil and gas sector is a good example. It has seen outsized increases in its profits over the last couple of years. It has seen a 1000% increase in its profits. That is a lot of money.
What do we mean when we say excess profits? We mean expanding one's profits by a 1000% over two years, because who pays for that?
Conservatives are quick to talk about how every penny that is raised in taxes comes out of Canadian pockets. Well, guess what? Every penny that is raised at the pump comes out of Canadians' pockets too. I am not just talking about the pennies that go to the government and the carbon tax or the gas tax or whatever else. I am talking about the pennies that go to provide that 1000% increase over two years in corporate profits for oil and gas.
That is why New Democrats have been advocating for an excess profits tax. We forced the Liberals to do this when it comes to banks and insurance companies. We have also said that this should also apply to oil and gas companies.
What do we hear from the Conservatives when we talk about that? They say, oh, well, they will charge it to the consumer. They will just pass that on to the consumer. There is probably some truth in that. That is why the member for Windsor West has done an excellent job talking about how we should have a formal body that regulates price increases so that Canadians can be sure that they are getting a fair shake at the pumps. We have done this for decades in Manitoba with the public utilities board, in respect of auto insurance rates and Manitoba hydro rates and gas prices for heating one's home.
This is not something out in left field. This is something that provinces do with respect to important price controls, something that the member for Windsor West has done a lot of great work on.
The other thing that they neglect to mention is what happens if one removes the carbon tax. For some reason, they think that if there is additional tax, they will just pass that on to the consumer, but if by lowering a tax, we create more disposable income, they somehow think that oil and gas companies are not going to raise their prices to gobble that up too. We have a problem. Yes, the oil and gas companies win, it seems, no matter what one does.
That is why the member for Windsor West is bang on in talking about a real way to control oil and gas prices, but they best believe that by reducing those kinds of taxes in a period where the oil and gas companies have been jacking up their prices and making a 1000% increases in their profits over two years, they are going to gobble that up too.
That is why targeted tax relief, like doubling the GST rebate, has been praised by private sector economists as a good way to provide relief to Canadians who need it the most without contributing to inflation and that broad-based tax relief, of the kind that the Conservatives advocate for, is seen as something that would contribute to inflation. B.C., Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories all have their own carbon pricing system imposed provincially. Getting rid of the carbon tax is not going to make a whit of difference for people who live in those provinces.
We have a broad-based tax measure proposed that economists say will be inflationary and only provides relief to people in about half the country. That is not a plan. That is just a talking point.
1859 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 10:09:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just have a question about what the Conservatives believe is the right way forward with respect to the dental care plan. When we look at the fact that a quarter of a million children have received benefits from this and the fact that this year we are now going to expand it to seniors, to persons with disabilities and children under the age of 18, will the Conservatives commit to keeping this program in place, or are they going to go back to the status quo that used to exist, where low-income families with no insurance coverage basically had to fend for themselves and it was the law of the jungle with respect to their oral health?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 10:10:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member where all the money comes from, which, once again, is the Canadian people. I would also remind the hon. member that there is nothing about the supposed dental program that requires the money to be used on dentistry. It is actually just a cheque that gets written should someone want it, so I would have a question for the member with respect to accountability and whether it is actually accomplishing what he wants it to accomplish, or whether it is just cash being piped out. Again, I would remind him that money does not grow on trees. I would also remind the member that the government has no way of generating money of its own. It has only the money that it takes through taxation, so to take a wad of cash from the right pocket and put a few nickels and dimes into the left pocket is absolutely atrocious and never praiseworthy.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
