SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/21/24 9:00:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tell us that they are very green and very environmentally minded. We have looked at the budget and analyzed it carefully because we are thorough. If something is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it, of course. There is no partisanship in that. It is based purely on facts. The Liberals tell us that there are no more subsidies for the oil industry. However, in the budget, we see $30.3 billion in subsidies for oil companies in the form of tax credits. I hear my Liberal colleagues talk about future generations. Not only is the government using taxpayer dollars to fund the most polluting industry in the world, but it is taking that money away from those same young people, that same young generation and that next generation, who will have to deal with climate change. What explanation could there be for such a measure to appear in this budget? The government is giving $30.3 billion to an industry that is likely the wealthiest and most profitable industry in the world, and it is getting that money from taxpayers. How can it justify such a measure?

208 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:02:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, on this side of the House, we have worked very hard and aggressively to combat climate change, and we will continue to do so for future generations. Not only that, but also I was talking more precisely about housing and how we are going to be combatting the issues around affordability on housing. I can only speak for my riding specifically. We have already broken ground on the rapid housing initiative on Steveston Highway and Railway Avenue in Richmond, British Columbia, where we will be building 25 units for those who need it the most: women and women with children. It is something we are really happy to introduce. We have broken ground on that, and I am looking forward to it being done in record time.

133 words

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

May/21/24 9:03:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing my colleague and neighbour from the lower mainland of B.C.. I do have a question for him that is serious. We have seen how badly Conservatives managed money when they were in power, with the giveaways to banks, the massive giveaways to CEOs for the oil and gas sector and the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that have sucked the lifeblood out of this country. It is $30 billion each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who should know, having evaluated the impacts of this dismal list of Harper treaties that have really sucked this country dry and that have led to, of course, all the cuts to services as well. My colleague, though, should be able to comment on why the Liberals have done much the same thing. They have not ended the tax haven treaties. They continue to give money, splurge, to oil and gas CEOs, and they provided even more money to the banks in liquidity supports than the Harper government did. Why do liberals take the worst practices of the Harper regime, rather than the best practices of financial management? Of course, as we are aware, those come from the party that is best at managing money and paying down debt, and that is the NDP.

220 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:04:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to answer questions from the member opposite from British Columbia. When it comes to our banking system and taxation, the member opposite very well knows that we have made adequate and competitive choices when it comes to tax fairness. I encourage working closely with him on these issues.

54 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/21/24 9:05:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would rise in the House one day to say that the Prime Minister and I finally agree on a constitutional issue. A careful reading of this budget makes it clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are no longer federalists. Like the Bloc Québécois, they now oppose the idea of dividing responsibilities between the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and those of the House of Commons. Let us take a closer look at the definition of federalism. According to the late Benoît Pelletier, the hallmark of a federation is that federal institutions have sovereignty in their areas of jurisdiction, while the provinces have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction. We in the Bloc Québécois do not subscribe to Canadian federalism, but since our party was created, we have always fought to protect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction until Quebec becomes independent. How could anyone conclude that the Liberals still believe in Canadian federalism after seeing the dozens of encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions featured in this budget? That means that most members in this House do not believe in Canadian federalism. That is great news. However, rest assured that is where the similarities end. The Liberal Party is running a country that is unable to provide passports within a reasonable period of time, unable to make sure its public servants get paid and even unable to properly equip an invaded ally without neutralizing its own army's capabilities. This same party is now claiming that it wants to show the provinces and Quebec how to manage their health care systems, for instance. The Liberals have interfered so much that they have run out of areas to infringe upon. If the Prime Minister loses a a few more points in the polls, will he suggest changing the code of conduct for child care centres or will he interfere in how Hydro-Québec operates? Oh, wait. He has already done that. Believe it or not, when the Bloc Québécois comes up with its pre-budget requests, we do our homework and we request things that actually fall under federal jurisdiction. Here is what we asked for. We asked for the federal government to give Quebec the unconditional right to opt out with full compensation from any new federal program in areas under the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Obviously, that is not in the budget. We also asked for the federal government to increase old age security starting at age 65, which is what my esteemed colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 seeks to do. Obviously, that is not in the budget either. We also asked the government to put an immediate end to all fossil fuel subsidies, including tax measures, and to support clean, renewable energy instead. Everyone knows that tax credits are a pretty deceptive way of subsidizing an industry that is already very rich and that is making billions in profits on the backs of taxpayers. It is actually very difficult to figure out exactly how much those tax credits are worth. Obviously, this budget does not end fossil fuel subsidies. We had another request as well. We asked the government to pay Quebec what it owes for asylum seekers. That is certainly not in the budget. Quebec is still asking for the $900 million it spent welcoming asylum seekers after the feds opened the borders. Quebec welcomed them and worked hard to integrate them, but we are still waiting to be reimbursed. Lastly, Quebec asked the government to transfer the housing budget. The federal government is unfortunately taking over in the housing crisis. Instead of transferring the money to Quebec and the provinces, the federal government is now imposing conditions, not only on Quebec and the provinces, but also on municipalities. For example, it wants to impose conditions related to density around college and university campuses. That is direct interference in municipalities' jurisdiction over city planning. That is next-level jurisdictional encroachment. Let me recap what is in this budget, because none of the Bloc Québécois's requests are there. On April 16, the Government of Canada tabled its budget. First, it mentions a negative budgetary balance of $40 billion for 2023-24, $39.8 billion for 2024-25 and $38.9 billion for 2025-26, which is not that far off. The trend continues before reaching a projected deficit of $20 billion in 2028-29. The government is therefore choosing to rack up debt for itself, for Canadians and for Quebeckers in the years to come, of course, with no plan to balance the budget, which is alarming. The government is therefore deciding to tax the public more, as with the increased capital gains tax. However, it is taking on as much debt as ever. I laid out the figures. Our debt remains the same. The government is going to get a little more money, but it is going to keep taking on more debt.

855 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/21/24 9:09:59 p.m.
Watch

I would like to point out that the hon. member for Terrebonne has the floor, and I hope that those who are taking part in conversations will keep their voices very low.

32 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/21/24 9:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it seems we are witnessing an NDP-Liberal coalition meeting here in the House. Basically, the government just keeps spending. Is it spending more? Not really, it is mostly just wasting more. Over the past few months, we have seen examples of the government spending too much and spending poorly. One obvious example is the money allocated for first nations housing. The government announces significant investments year after year, but it is unable to ensure that this money has any real impact. In fact, a recent Auditor General's report demonstrated that zero improvements have been made in on-reserve housing since the government took office. Billions of dollars have been sunk into it and there have not been enough results. Another fine example is, of course, the ArriveCAN app, which I have spoken to several times in the House. It was supposed to cost $80,000, but it ended up costing the government, and therefore taxpayers, at least $60 million. What we learned from ArriveCAN is that there is a much larger and more widespread problem within the current government. Under the Liberals, the public service has grown enormously, more and more contracts have been awarded to consultants, and a growing proportion of those same contracts are being awarded on a non-competitive basis. Let us not forget that many of these contracts could have been carried out in-house, by our public servants. It is quite clear that Canadians and Quebeckers are not getting the best value for their money. There has been talk about encroachment into Quebec's jurisdictions. There has been talk about the deficit. There has been talk about the mismanagement of services that fall under federal jurisdiction, but nothing has been said about why. Why is the government proposing such a disastrous budget? I will give a hint. The majority of the money promised is planned for 2026-27 and the years thereafter, well past the date of the next federal election. Just as an example, 97% of the $1.1 billion allocated to accelerating the construction of apartments is budgeted for after the election, as is 91% of the $1.5 billion allocated for the new housing infrastructure fund. The same goes for the 88% of the money promised for pharmacare, 88% of the funding to support research and 87.5% of the funding to strengthen Canada's advantage in artificial intelligence. This budget is at best an election promise and at worst a strategy to stay in power by convincing the NDP to support the government. In its desperation, the government wants to interfere everywhere, yet people in government are unable to do the work themselves. I already gave a few examples. They are taking away responsibilities from the provinces and managing them ineffectively and at a much higher cost. As an economist, I would describe any budget that tries to create a slew of new services, while disregarding the government's primary responsibilities, as irresponsible. If the Liberal Party is so desperate that it is looking for ideas for the next election, I would like to offer it a campaign slogan: “Spend and borrow for a mismanaged tomorrow”. This government thinks that, by disregarding Quebeckers' right to manage their own responsibilities and those of their nation, it can buy itself a brief reprieve, but only by taking on debt. According to an old French proverb that Quebeckers have not forgotten, no debt is ever repaid faster than a debt of contempt. As it happens, Quebeckers have long memories.

594 words

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

May/21/24 9:13:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Her remarks are always relevant, but I have two questions for her. First, I want to talk about dental care. Hundreds of thousands of seniors in Quebec are now enrolled in the dental care plan, which means that it has already been very successful. Thousands of Quebeckers have already had access to this care. This new program is clearly working. Next, I want to talk about pharmacare. Quebec's system unfortunately leaves 15% of Quebeckers out in the cold. That is why all the major unions have said that the Bloc Québécois must support the pharmacare bill that the NDP set in motion, because it is very important. Two voices from Quebec have been very clear in their support for the dental care plan and the new pharmacare program. We do not understand why the Bloc Québécois continues to oppose them. Can the member explain why the Bloc Québécois is not listening to all these voices from Quebec?

179 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/21/24 9:15:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like to answer those two questions, which are ultimately one and the same. Quite simply, these are encroachments on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. As I said at the outset, since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has opposed encroachments on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. The federal government is in no position to tell Quebec how to manage its health care, when Quebec has already done it and done it well. The system is not perfect, but it continues to improve. It has served Quebeckers well for years. If Quebec wants to increase dental coverage, Quebec will do it. It does not need the federal government to tell it what to do.

129 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/21/24 9:16:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about balancing the budget. I know that there are all sorts of examples in history, including Quebec's history, where perhaps too many eggs were broken to make an omelette. We know that fiscal austerity or zero deficit efforts have been made, often much more violently in other countries of the world, especially developing countries, to the detriment of those who are struggling the most and at the expense of public services. Those were the days of triumphant neo-liberalism. However, I think that asking for a plan is about making sure that we do not get to that point. If the plan is no good, we will say so. Sooner or later, we need to balance the budget in one way or another, so it is better to do it the right way. Is asking for a plan not just a way to ensure that we do not end up using drastic or highly ideological remedies that would penalize those who are struggling the most?

175 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/21/24 9:17:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. That is why several jurisdictions already have laws on the books requiring a plan to return to a balanced budget, precisely to prevent situations where debt accumulates to the point of hurting the people who need it most. As my colleague rightly pointed out, a return to a balanced budget is essential. It is essential to guarantee a future for Quebeckers as long as we remain part of Canada.

76 words

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

May/21/24 9:18:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to the question of privilege that was raised earlier today, and we have given notice to the Table. To start off, it seems that the premise of the question of privilege raised earlier today has already been overtaken by events. As you know, the Liberal Party of Canada profusely apologized to the Speaker. Over the course of the day, it issued a letter clarifying that the posting put on the Liberal Party's website that involved the riding association of the Speaker was done without the authorization or even the knowledge of the Speaker. Thus, the whole basis of the question of privilege seems to have been surpassed by events and by the facts coming out. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, even though, factually, the question of privilege was wrong in many respects, not one member of the House heckled the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie while he was raising his question of privilege. I would ask that the Conservatives be asked to show the same respect to me, as a member, as we showed to the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

196 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/21/24 9:19:23 p.m.
Watch

I tend to agree with the hon. member. People actually gave the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie plenty of leeway in his presentation, and I would ask that the hon. members do the same for the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

45 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/21/24 9:19:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we now know the facts: this was posted without the Speaker's knowledge or authorization, it was promptly deleted and an apology has been issued, so I think in a very clear sense, that should bring closure to the question of privilege. I did want to comment on a number of the points that were made this morning by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie. First, and I find this somewhat disturbing, the member from Grande Prairie—Mackenzie seemed to be questioning a decision made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker when the Speaker ruled on the issue of the moving of a substantive motion around the issue of the Speaker. That ruling is absolutely correct. It should not be called into question. In fact, it would be inappropriate for a member to call that into question. It follows along with the procedural manual, the bible of this House of Commons. It is very clear that this ruling was appropriate. If Conservatives felt strongly about this, they could move a substantive motion during any opposition day. It is quite clear, given that we have had the same opposition day motion moved, with a bit of tweaking, for two years, that the Conservatives have basically been using their opposition days to move the same thing over and over again. The reality is that the rules of our House actually stipulate that an opposition day motion could be used in that regard, so I found the questioning, by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, of a decision that is very clearly in keeping with the procedures of this House, quite disturbing. Second, the issue that was raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie questioned the decision to ask the member from Carleton to leave this House when he caused disorder with very unparliamentary, disrespectful language that the Speaker asked him to withdraw and apologize for, and he refused. The characterization by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie in his question of privilege is completely inaccurate. We all saw that scene. We were present in the House of Commons. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the one party that was not in favour of it was the party that was impacted by the member for Carleton refusing to apologize and withdraw, and all other members in this House believed that the Speaker had made the right decision. I find that disturbing as well. Third and finally, in the comments made by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, he did not recognize the fact that the events that happened in December of last year were treated through a PROC motion that was brought forward to this House, voted on and passed concurrence, so that issue had already been dealt with. To raise that as a new question of privilege is clearly not appropriate. Mr. Speaker, my final comments are these: I have raised this with you previously, and this comes from a ruling that was established by this House on September 24, 2014, by the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is currently the Conservative House leader. He said, “Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.” I have raised this numerous times. We have seen disrespectful, unparliamentary comments on social media from numerous members of the Conservative caucus that are violations of this very clear ruling from 10 years ago. I have brought them forward for your judgment, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, for the Conservatives to so cavalierly throw the rule book out, throw precedence out and throw the very clear decisions of this House and rulings by the Chair out the window and continually question the Speaker, raising allegations of bias, is something that could be treated as a breach of privilege and could be punished accordingly. I find the question of privilege this morning to be in a very similar vein: it was factually inaccurate, poorly drafted and contained elements that were, quite frankly, false and misleading. It does constitute again, rather than a bona fide question of privilege, an attempt to skirt the rules of this House that have been clearly established. I come back to that issue of numerous cases of Conservative MPs violating that principle from 10 years ago and the ruling by the former Speaker, now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you look into that and come back to the House in short order. These violations cannot continue. They are inappropriate, unparliamentary and disrespectful of this place.

785 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/21/24 9:25:25 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his input. As it puts me in the awkward position once again to make a decision, I will try to come back to the House as soon as possible.

35 words

Decision

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

May/21/24 9:25:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years and eight consecutive deficit budgets, the Prime Minister has doubled the debt, adding more to our national debt than all other prime ministers combined. Housing costs have doubled under his watch and, now, two million Canadians are forced to visit their local food banks in a single month. That is twice the population of Nova Scotia. With the budget, we can see another $50 billion of inflationary spending. The budget and the Prime Minister are simply not worth the cost. I will be voting no confidence. Common-sense Conservatives have a plan to axe the tax, build the home, fix the budget and, yes, stop the crime. Since he became the Prime Minister, the wealthiest .01% of Canadians have been living lavishly, receiving major subsidies from their corporations that are bigger than ever in the history of our country and huge loan guarantees that prevent them from losing money on bad investments. Who foots the bill for the out-of-control Prime Minister? The hard-working taxpayers. Contractors like those from GC Strategies are among the .01% thanks to the generous gifts from the NDP-Liberal government. Who else is in that .01%? The Prime Minister himself. As a matter of fact, he is considered one of the world's wealthiest politicians. Yet, over the past nine years, Canada's personal income growth has fallen behind that of other G7 nations. Today, average Canadian families and seniors are forced to choose between paying their mortgage and putting food on their table. Let me make one thing clear. Conservatives are not against spending. We are against wasteful spending, which the NDP-Liberal government excels at. Conservatives will support programs that deliver proven positive outcomes. Take the government's dental care program, for instance. Who will it really help? Is it helping seniors? No. Did the government consult with the Canadian Dental Association before announcing it? No. The result is a program rushed out the door in a desperate attempt to buy votes with no real thought or consultation behind it. I have heard from many dentists and one thing is clear. These dentists care about their patients and have worked tirelessly to build their business, but the Canadian dental care program in its current state will not allow them the same high level of patient care they provide. The proof is in the extremely low sign-up rate by dentists. Canadians have been promised free dental care, but are now upset due to the massive limitations and restrictions imposed by this ill-conceived NDP-Liberal program. Eligible treatments are insufficient for the prevention and maintenance of good oral health. Dentists should be able to make recommendations based on the individual needs of their patients and not the constraints dictated by this government and covered up by their insurance company. The public is being misled about the scope of coverage and the fees. Most patients will be surprised by out-of-pocket expenses such as copay balances and limitations of service. The burden will fall on dental teams to explain these deficiencies. After analyzing the CDCP benefit grid, most treatments will be reimbursed to the dental team at around 80%. The Liberals claim this is to avoid overburdening the taxpayers. Is that not rich? They awarded Sun Life $747 million to administer this program. Clearly, the Liberal government does not understand the cost of providing quality health care. To be a provider, dentists were told to sign an open-ended, unilateral contract. Who would sign a contract where the details are unclear and unfair? The Minister of Health has said dentists should just try it if they like it. That does not even make sense. It is an insurance plan, not a pair of gloves. Dentists cannot just try out a plan to see whether it fits. This is neither sensible nor ethical. What happens if they decide not to continue? How can they morally or ethically stop treating a patient based on insurance coverage? Let us also talk about patient privacy. Accepting the claims processing and payment agreement gives Sun Life rights and access to the entire patient chart. Client consent is obtained as part of member enrolment in the CDCP, meaning that personal health information and dental charts will be readily available to Sun Life and the government. The plan has little to no thought on how it would work. To sell it as free dental care is nothing more than false advertising and wasteful spending, not unlike the billion-dollar arrive scam app. I googled the meaning of the word “budget”, and this is what came up: “A budget is a plan you write down to decide how you will spend your money”. That part of the definition the government seems to understand, but it is the next sentence where it fails: “A budget helps you make sure you will have enough money every month. Without a budget, you might run out of money before your next paycheck.” The NDP-Liberal coalition has spent so much money that more Canadian tax dollars are used to service the debt than are spent on health care. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, confirmed that the Prime Minister's $61 billion in new spending is not helpful in bringing inflation down and lowering interest rates. After nine years, the Prime Minister's budget is just more of the same of what got us into this mess. He did not stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop endangering our social programs and jobs by adding more and more debt. His government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. His record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high. Food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with an additional million expected in 2024. He will not stop until common-sense Conservatives start governing with common sense for this country. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget includes over $61 billion in new inflationary spending. This would cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Former Liberal Governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge said that the current budget is the “worst since 1982.” Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that his spending is pressing on the inflationary gas pedal, driving up interest rates. Struggling families cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything, keeping interest rates high. That is why common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget. First, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. Second, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal infrastructure money. Third, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refuses to listen. Common-sense Conservatives will not support this budget, and the people of my constituency are just waiting for us to form government and beat the current Liberal government.

1283 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

May/21/24 9:35:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a question that my friend from Kingston and the Islands has actually asked in the chamber a few times this evening, without receiving a response. It concerns the idea that the budget is creating more inflation in Canada. We know that now for four months in a row, inflation has gone down. It is at a four-month low, at 2.7%. Can the member explain to me how apparently the budget is creating more inflation, when we actually see inflation going down in Canada?

94 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

May/21/24 9:36:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to share a story that was told to me by an 88-year-old senior who came to visit me in my constituency office. He said to me that he cannot afford to eat, and he asked what good going to the dentist is if he has nothing to eat. He told me that 10 years ago he could afford to eat; it was no problem at all. It is only after nine years of the incompetent NDP-Liberal government that seniors like this one cannot afford to eat. The senior also told me that he was ashamed of himself. I asked why. He said that up until 2021, he always voted Liberal. He told me that he will now be voting—

128 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 9:37:03 p.m.
Watch

Normally answers have to be the same length as the questions so other members can ask questions. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

23 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/21/24 9:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the one thing that struck me was that the member mentioned that seniors are not benefiting from the dental care program. We know already that two million seniors across this country have registered for the program. We know that tens of thousands of seniors are registering every week. We know that in the first two weeks of the program, 60,000 seniors got dental care. That means that hundreds of seniors in the member's riding have benefited from the dental care program. I am wondering what she says to those seniors in her riding, when she says that nobody has benefited and when the proof is so very clear that tens of thousands, if not millions, of Canadian seniors are benefiting from the NDP dental care program.

130 words