Senator Gold: Again, thank you. I don’t have the answer to that. I’m not punting it to Agriculture and Heritage, although that is the primary place to go. I will certainly make inquiries, and, when I get an answer, I’ll communicate it to you directly as well as to the chamber.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I certainly cannot answer your question directly based simply on the assertions and assumptions you’re making about what was known or not known at the time of the minister’s appearance.

I have every confidence in the minister’s integrity and transparency, as he demonstrated here before the chamber. I’ll certainly make inquiries based upon your question, as I always do when I don’t have the answer, but I’m simply not in a position to comment on the assumptions and assertions that informed your question.

Senator Plett: Assertions, possibly; but assumptions, no. They are facts, leader Gold, not assumptions.

The member of Parliament for the area Scot Davidson had been advocating for his constituents for months on the issue of the aerodrome. He has tried on numerous occasions to get answers on the status of the proposal and to advise the minister’s office of the many issues with it, but the entire process has lacked any transparency or communication.

The fact that the Minister of Transport did not present the facts accurately when specifically asked here is very concerning, Senator Gold, but seems to be part of a pattern regarding this file and, indeed, many others. Senator Gold, what is the minister trying to hide?

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader. Yuesheng Wang, a researcher employed by Hydro-Québec, appeared in court in Longueuil yesterday, after being arrested on Monday by the RCMP, accused of economic espionage for the benefit of China. La Presse reported that Tina Zhu was there to support him.

Ms. Zhu said she was a representative of the Canada-China Friendship Promotion Association, an organization whose exact workings are nebulous. Ms. Zhu said she does not work for the Chinese government and that it’s a coincidence that she advocates for Chinese officials in Canada and peddles the same messages as Beijing.

A bill I introduced in the Senate last February, Bill-237, would have allowed us to determine whether Ms. Zhu is working for the Chinese government. Unfortunately, that bill was blocked by a senator appointed by the Trudeau government.

Senator Gold, why does the Trudeau government oppose Bill S-237 and the creation of a foreign influence registry? The provisions of that bill would easily apply to authoritarian countries such as China, Iran and Russia.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Housakos. I am not doing anything to block the bill. Every bill introduced in the Senate must be properly examined, step by step, and your bill will be treated the same as every other bill.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, we have seen many examples of the Leader of the Government in the Senate exerting his power. When you have an interest in a bill, you have influence. Right now, Canada is in a situation where it is truly threatened by a number of countries that are trying to influence it.

The charges against Mr. Wang are very serious and unprecedented in the history of Canada. Senator Gold, can you reassure Canadians and confirm that the Trudeau government will see the proceedings against Mr. Wang through to the end and will not come to an agreement with the Chinese government to bury the matter, as it often does?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, on Tuesday, the Auditor General released a report that referenced significant delays in procuring Arctic‑capable vessels and icebreakers. When it comes to the icebreaker fleet, that fleet is now between 35 and 53 years of age. It’s urgent that the vessels be replaced since, given the age of the ships, a major failure could occur at any time, leader, yet no replacement vessel has been ordered, let alone construction started.

Why has this government failed so completely in addressing the issue — an issue that is so vital for Canada?

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I also rise to speak to Bill C-31, and, before I make my comments, I would like to thank Senator Yussuff, the sponsor of the bill; Senator Seidman, the critic of the bill; and all my colleagues who have spoken to the bill.

This bill will provide financial assistance for two unrelated programs. The first is to provide a dental program for children under the age of 12 years old if their families meet the criteria defined by the act. The second is a rental program to provide financial assistance to individuals and families who rent if they meet the criteria defined by the act.

Since the two programs are unrelated, I will begin by commenting on the dental program for children under the age of 12 years old. The dental program outlined in Bill C-31 is phase one of a national dental program, which was announced in Budget 2022. That budget proposed to provide funding of $5.3 billion over five years, beginning with $300 million this year, and $1.7 billion annually thereafter to provide dental care for Canadians.

The program will start this year with children under the age of 12 years old, and then expand next year to children up to 18 years of age, seniors and persons living with a disability.

Full implementation of the national dental program will occur in 2025. For this year, the dental program is restricted to families with an income of less than $90,000 annually, with no copays for those with an annual income of less than $70,000.

Health Canada officials told our Finance Committee that this program for children under the age of 12 years old is estimated to provide dental services to half a million children across the country.

Budget 2022 estimated that the cost of this dental program for children under the age of 12 years old during this fiscal year would be $300 million — compared to the estimated cost of $247 million, as disclosed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in speaking about the estimated cost of the dental program, told us it would be to the advantage of legislators to have much stronger projections than we currently have with respect to not only Bill C-31, but also to the dental program as a whole. He said that Bill C-31 is only a down payment on a program that is supposed to be much larger and permanent. To emphasize this point, he went on to say that, in his opinion, he does not think it is normal that we do not have better information.

Another major issue discussed at committee was the harmonization of the dental program with existing programs — or should I say, the lack of harmonization. During testimony at our National Finance Committee, we could not get a clear description of how the proposed federal dental plan will be harmonized with provincial plans and private insurance plans.

A 2019 study by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, or CADTH, identified over 80 different public oral health programs across federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions with significant variations between these programs in terms of eligibility criteria, services covered and reimbursement rates.

While this indicates that there is public sector funding for dental care in Canada, most dental expenses are either paid using private dental insurance, or paid for out of pocket by individual Canadians or their families.

Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, said in his testimony that he did not see any provision in the legislation that seeks to harmonize a new dental program with existing programs. Rather, children whose parents have private dental insurance are not eligible, and those who are covered by a provincial plan are eligible only to the extent that they have out-of-pocket expenses. Provinces and private plans are first payers, and the federal plan comes in after. He said he has not seen any intention to harmonize the plan.

The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, or CDHA , in their testimony, expressed concern that Canadian employers will repeal private dental plans to offload coverage to the federal plan. Similarly, there’s also a concern that provincial plans will be scaled back once the federal plan is implemented. However, Minister Duclos, the Minister of Health, has assured the committee that no displacement or crowding out of existing plans is anticipated.

Dr. Walter Siqueira, Dean of the College of Dentistry at the University of Saskatchewan, told our Finance Committee that dental students at the 10 dental schools across the country provide professional dental services to many patients, including some patients who will benefit from the proposed dental program. These services are provided at a lower cost, and dental students are provided with practical experience before they graduate. Dr. Siqueira indicated that dental students at the dental schools are concerned they may lose some of their patients to the new program, and this would be a big loss to the students and the dental schools.

Several senators were interested in determining the results of the dental program, which would include a comparison of the cost of the program with cost savings in health programs which are left to deal with the problems resulting from poor dental health in children. I have spent a significant amount of time studying Departmental Results Reports in which many government departments and agencies cannot even meet half of their self-imposed performance standards, so I’m doubtful that any cost-versus-savings analysis will be done.

Mr. Giroux, in responding to the question, said the following much more eloquently than I can. He said that it’s essential to try to capture the benefits and measure whether they have meaningful results. However, he had not seen or heard anything to indicate the government intends to measure the benefits of the dental program, and if the past is any indication, he said he’s not confident it will be done. He concluded that “. . . it’s unlikely we’ll see the government measuring the impacts of Bill C-31, which is unfortunate.”

Incidentally, Health Canada in its 2020-21 Departmental Results Report indicated it had met only 42% of its performance indicators, while the Public Health Agency of Canada indicated it had met only 29%.

Honourable senators, I support a dental program for children, whether it be federal or provincial or a combination of the two. As a former elementary school teacher, I have seen first-hand the results of poor dental hygiene in school children under the age of 12 years. It is not only the poor condition of their teeth but the pain and discomfort the children must endure when they have dental problems but no access to dental services. Dental day surgery for children is not uncommon. In a country such as Canada, all children should have access to a dentist and receive regular dental care.

It is unfortunate that the federal government is not proposing a real dental program. It is a missed opportunity to ensure that the children are actually receiving dental services. What government is proposing in Bill C-31 is financial assistance to low-income families, with no assurance that children will actually receive all the dental care they need. Even the Canada Revenue Agency could not tell us what post-disbursement procedures will be carried out to ensure that a child actually receives dental services as a result of the money paid out.

My final comments on the dental program relate to the adequacy of the funding to be provided. There are two benefit periods: October 1, 2022, to June 30 of next year, and then from July 1 of next year to June 30, 2024. Benefits would be $650 per child if the family’s adjusted net income is less than $70,000; for higher-income households, $390 for each child if the family’s adjusted net income is between $70,000 and $80,000; and $260 for each child if the family’s adjusted net income is between $80,000 and $90,000.

There was some discussion regarding the adequacy of the funding and what recourse the family would have if the amount approved were not sufficient.

The Canadian Dental Association informed us that based on a representative sample of more than 109,000 electronic claims submitted in March of this year across all provinces and territories, the median claim per visit for a patient under age 12 years was $150. The association said that, overall, 95.6% of all claims submitted for children under age 12 were for less than $650. This was consistent across jurisdictions, ranging from a low of 91% to a high of 99%. So while it looks like the amount might be sufficient for most children, it still does not resolve the issue if a child’s dental services require more than the amount that’s stipulated in the legislation.

The dental program defined in Bill C-31 is not a dental program but rather a financial assistance program administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, an agency whose primary function is to administer tax laws for Canada and most of the provinces and territories to collect taxes. The dental program does not even reside in the Department of Health or the Department of Social Development.

Honourable senators, Bill C-31 is also proposing to provide a rental program of $500 to individuals who rent and meet the criteria stipulated in the legislation. Rental rates across Canada continue to increase, and the Bank of Canada’s increase in interest rates will impact the country’s rental market. According to the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, rent in just Toronto has increased 20% compared to last year. The objective of the government’s rental program is to assist low-income renters by providing $500 in financial assistance. The government estimates that this program will provide financial assistance to 1.8 million renters.

To qualify, renters must meet several criteria, although officials from the Canada Revenue Agency told us that compliance with all of the criteria will not be confirmed prior to issuance of the cheques. They told us that the adjusted net income ceilings of $20,000 for individuals and $35,000 for families can be verified through the tax system, and the applicant will have to provide information that the rent paid during 2022 was at least 30% of their adjusted net income. So, as they put it, there will be validation up front of that calculation; however, there will be no confirmation of rent paid. Rather, the Canada Revenue Agency intends to set up audit and compliance checks subsequent to payment of the cheques, but officials could not provide us with any information regarding post-payment audit and compliance checks.

Budget 2022 estimated that this $500 benefit would cost $475 million. The government has since increased that estimated cost of $475 million to $1.2 billion, or more than twice the original estimate. I mention this because this is quite a significant increase, and I question how the government could be so wrong. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a cost of $940 million for this program but could not reconcile his estimated cost of $940 million with the government’s original estimate of $475 million or the government’s revised estimate of $1.2 billion.

The Maytree Foundation, a private charity, in its brief to the committee, recommended that the requirement for applicants to pay at least 30% of their income be dropped, since the ceiling on adjusted net income for both a single person, at $20,000, and a family, at $35,000, is so low that any proportion spent on rent would be a financial burden. They also said that the section of the act which allows applicants living in multi-tenant dwellings to use only 90% of their income to determine whether they pay at least 30% of their income on rent is unfair. It is possible that by using 90%, it would just barely prevent people from accessing the benefit.

While government committed in Budget 2022 to provide financial assistance to renters, it is not addressing the issue of rising interest rates and the increasing cost to homeowners of paying their mortgages. Budget 2022 contained a number of initiatives to encourage people to buy their homes. This was accompanied by assurances from the Bank of Canada that interest rates would not increase. In fact, in June of 2020, the Bank of Canada dismissed concerns regarding interest rate hikes.

In closing, I’d like to make a general comment on the financial assistance provided to individuals and families. We have recently seen a bill providing additional GST rebates. This bill provides a dental program and rental assistance. I’m confident there will be additional assistance in the future, including those in the Fall Economic Statement 2022. Each program has its own criteria, its own income ceilings and, in some cases, staggered levels of assistance within the programming.

Has the government determined who benefits not only from each individual program but from all the programs as a group? Are the same individuals and families being assisted by each of the programs, and, if so, why not have just one program or two programs? Or is each program assisting a different group of individuals and families? If so, are these the families most in need? Finally, are any individuals and families whom the government should be helping being left behind because of the criteria being used in the various programs? Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, please note that I am delivering this speech today on behalf of our colleague Senator Mary Jane McCallum. What follows are her words:

Honourable senators, unfortunately, I have tested positive for COVID-19 so I am unable to be in the chamber at this time. Without having the ability to participate virtually as was previously afforded to senators in this situation, it is regrettable that I cannot give these remarks myself.

I find this fact particularly perplexing, as we have seen committee witnesses exercise their privilege of appearing before committees virtually, yet this same possibility is not afforded to senators. While I do not want to spend more time than necessary on this matter, I feel it prudent to mention that I am proof that the current pandemic is still ongoing. The Senate has gone to great pains to establish the infrastructure for senators to participate virtually, should they be physically unable to attend in person. I remain disappointed that we continue to not be afforded that option.

I would like to begin with the unfair and arbitrary deadlines for having Bill C-31 come to its third reading vote in the Senate. As some of you may remember, I highlighted my concern over the climate and intent in which this bill is being passed. I have seen first-hand how critical oral health is to our overall well-being. But allowing for its swift passage will not do it justice, as it does not meaningfully address dental disease.

Countless health professionals in the dental field have long awaited such a program. Dental professionals have always been aware, however, that when the opportunity arose, we would only get one proverbial kick at this can. We have one chance to do our best to get it right. The benefit that such a program could yield is immeasurable. However, handing cheques to people who attest to their intent to seek dental services cannot reasonably be called a program.

One concern I have with this bill is with regard to an omitted dental care service provider. Within the definitions section of this bill, it explicitly names dentists, denturists and dental hygienists as being lawfully entitled to provide a suite of dental services. However, a critical group that has been left out is dental therapists, who are registered and licensed dental professionals in their own right. They are trained to perform basic clinical dental treatment, including preventive and restorative treatments, as well as general disease prevention and oral health promotion. Moreover, much of the work that they do is targeted to youth, who are explicitly the intended benefactors off Bill C-31. Neglecting to name dental therapists as dental care service providers under this bill is a serious oversight, as this means they will be unable to provide these services to specific groups of children, thereby creating a patchwork of provincial dental programs directed at these very youth.

While we explored the idea of an amendment to include dental therapists, it was deemed not feasible within the scope of the bill.

Colleagues, another concern I have with the bill is that the benefit flows directly to the applicant as opposed to the service provider. It is not infrequent that dentists end up taking a loss on many of the services they provide by not receiving direct payment and have no recourse to recovering those expenses. That is why many offices have the policy of prepayment.

When looking at lower-income families, we must not lose sight of the fact that many of them face choices that may be unimaginable to us in our collectively held positions of privilege. For many Canadians, receiving $650 is quite substantial.

Although the money may very well be claimed with the right intent and purpose, life happens. It is not unthinkable that some may be in a position where they must decide if the pot of money sitting in their account is really better served for dentistry or for food, rent or clothing. These challenging decisions are a reality for far too many in our country.

This, colleagues, is what we refer to as the social determinants of health. For too many Canadians, there will always be more pressing concerns surrounding basic necessities. It is these determinants that act as indicators of why some of our more vulnerable populations have higher morbidities and worse health outcomes than other populations across Canada. I had also considered an amendment on this matter, but it would have necessitated a thorough rewrite of the bill.

Honourable senators, another issue I would like to raise is the fundamental lack of oversight when it comes to the appropriation of such a vast amount of public monies. If you search the bill, you will note that no reporting mechanism exists in this legislation. There is no onus on the minister to report to Parliament and give parliamentarians and Canadians a sense of how the money is actually spent: if it was spent efficiently, if it was spent effectively, if there were concerning trends with invalid claims and, thus, unintentional misappropriation of taxpayer dollars.

Given the nature, spirit and intent of the program, I feel parliamentarians should be given the ability to know if the program is working as intended. And if it is not working as intended, parliamentarians deserve the right to know that, too.

As such, honourable senators, I bring forward an amendment to remedy this oversight. It is not changing the scope, substance or action of the bill; merely, it is adding a reporting requirement on the minister so that we, as parliamentarians, can be assured that the legislation we pass — which, again, appropriates a considerable amount of taxpayer dollars — is delivering on what it is intended to.

Senator Plett: Senator Pate, the only way I can properly answer that question is whether the person is Indigenous, Black, White or a different ethnicity, they have the same laws. If they conduct themselves properly in prison, they will get out on their statutory release.

You cannot tell me, Senator Pate, that an Indigenous, incarcerated individual who follows all the rules will be treated differently in staying in prison than somebody else. If you’re suggesting, Senator Pate, that we have a law for Indigenous people and for Black people, and a different law for others, then that’s what we should be working with. But you cannot say that because this person may fall through the cracks, let’s let everybody off in an easy manner. That is not the way to run our justice system.

I’m sorry if that’s not answering your question directly. I believe strongly in mandatory minimums. I believe strongly in mandatory minimums for all Canadians, not just certain groups.

Hon. Kim Pate: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 2, on page 15, by adding the following after line 17:

Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Pate: You’re right, you didn’t answer the question. It’s not me saying this, it’s the Office of the Correctional Investigator documenting that 64% of those in maximum security are Indigenous women in the women’s prison. It’s higher also for men and Black folks as well. They have less access to programs and services.

I ask you again, in exceptional circumstances, would you not support that individuals who, but for the day, would have been the victim had they engaged in hand-to-hand combat without a weapon, and they would often end up dead? Do you not believe they deserve the benefit of the exceptional circumstance? And I agree, regardless of the colour, but it’s a particular issue where we see the systemic discrimination impacting Indigenous women and Black women — those who have the least advantage and supports in society.

Senator Plett: I guess my answer to your question is I have sympathy for anybody who is in the situation that you’re describing. But do I believe that they should be treated differently in law? No, I’m sorry, I do not.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on September 21, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Housakos, concerning Taiwan — Global Affairs Canada.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on September 21, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Housakos, concerning Taiwan — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on September 29, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Dupuis, concerning the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on Funding Climate-Ready Infrastructure.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Leo Housakos on September 21, 2022)

Since 1970, Canada’s One China Policy has recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China, noting — neither challenging nor endorsing — the Chinese government’s position on Taiwan. Consistent with this policy, Canada continues to develop unofficial but valuable economic, cultural and people-to-people ties with Taiwan. Canada is represented in Taiwan by the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei, which is a locally incorporated entity staffed by Canada-based and locally engaged staff. It has been Canada’s long-standing practice to avoid any actions or statements that could imply recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state.

While remaining consistent with its One China Policy, Canada will continue its multi-faceted engagement with and on Taiwan, which includes collaborating on trade, technology, health, democratic governance and countering disinformation, while continuing to work to enhance peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Leo Housakos on September 21, 2022)

Insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is concerned:

Consistent with its long-standing One China Policy, Canada does not recognize a diplomatic or official passport from Taiwan.

Taiwanese persons with a passport issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Taiwan which includes a personal identification number do not require a temporary resident visa to travel to or through Canada since 2010. Eligible Taiwanese travellers are required to apply for Canada’s electronic travel authorization (eTA) to visit or transit through Canada. The eTA process is done online, and in most cases, authorization may be issued in a matter of minutes.

Those transiting through Canada and who hold a passport from Taiwan that does not have a personal identification number may be eligible to transit through Canada without an eTA if they are en route to, or departing from, the United States (U.S.), as part of the Transit Without Visa Program (TWOV). To benefit from the TWOV, an individual must hold a valid passport or travel document issued by their country of citizenship, must hold a valid U.S. visa, and must be travelling through an eligible airport and on a participating airline. A list of participating airlines and airports is available on Canada.ca website “Transit Without Visa Program.”

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Renée Dupuis on September 29, 2022)

Infrastructure Canada (INFC) recognizes the importance of reporting on program progress toward gender, diversity and inclusion commitments. While the department may not collect program-level data regarding the distribution of benefits by gender (as well as other identity factors) for historical and older programs, it collects other data the department may analyze to assess Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) impacts.

INFC programs achieve the government’s commitments by delivering funding to support initiatives and infrastructure that improve the quality of life for Canadians, including vulnerable groups. Policies and programs may take into account considerations such as accessibility, inclusivity and community benefits. Where possible, the department reports on GBA Plus impacts through reporting such as the Departmental Results Report and program evaluations.

As per the Treasury Board Policy on Results, program evaluations include horizontal considerations such as assessments from a GBA Plus perspective that include program design and delivery. Evaluations of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and Smart Cities Challenge are planned for 2022-23 and 2023-24. The department is currently developing a plan to improve the measurement and reporting of programs toward gender, diversity and inclusivity that includes capacity building and the identification and assessment of knowledge and process gaps.

Senator Woo: Thank you so much for your third reading speech and especially for sharing that personal story on the importance and necessity of the Canada dental benefit.

The $1 billion or so that will be spent will indeed benefit hundreds of thousands of children. The money, of course, is going to address dental decay, and there is no money set aside for preventative dental care. It is not part of this bill, and I’m not about to move an amendment to include prevention, but can you talk a bit about the thinking for the longer-term plan, the more permanent dental care plan, and whether that might include something as basic and beneficial as fluoridation of our water? In this country, about 60% of Canadians don’t have access to fluoridated water, including in my home city of Vancouver. In the United States, it is the opposite, only 40% of Americans do not have access to fluoridated water.

I wonder if it is possible for the federal government, in its longer-term plan, to think about a way of incentivizing municipalities to invest in fluoridation because fluoridation is as much a health investment as it is an infrastructure investment.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Woo. I think you raised a very important point for us all to consider.

As you know, the science on fluoridation is well known. It has been documented to be extremely important in dealing with cavities and the challenges in keeping our teeth in healthy order. We live in a federation. As I keep saying constantly, it is unique in the world. We love each other very well, but we don’t do the same things throughout this land. I’m hoping that at the end of the day, as the government develops a national program, working with the provinces and territories and Indigenous organizations, this will be a serious consideration, because the responsibility of provinces to make this mandatory in their jurisdictions remains with them and them alone. The federal government cannot impose, but it can incentivize the provinces to make this a reality. Equally, I think the education that our citizens need to understand about fluoridation is important for us to put in front of them.

There are still those who argue fluoridation should not be a regular feature of our water system. The evidence is quite clear. I do hope as we debate a national program, with the federal government working with the provinces and territories, this will become part of the debate that certainly can make this country a better place for us, to keep tooth decay at bay and helping young children to have a brighter future.

Hon. Hassan Yussuff moved third reading of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today on third reading of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing. I want to thank the members of the National Finance Committee for their work on the study of this bill, and the witnesses who appeared to give testimony on it.

Honourable senators, the bill before us is simply about helping people who need our help — from helping low-income Canadians deal with the increase in rent, to ensuring low-income and middle-income families have the financial means to provide basic oral health care for their children. I want to be clear that both the rental and dental benefits are meant to be short-term measures — not long-term solutions. The rental benefit is a short-term measure to help deal with the increase in rent that many low-income Canadians have experienced in the past year, and the dental benefit is an interim measure to bridge the gap to a permanent national dental solution for children. These measures are needed now. The sooner we pass this bill, the sooner Canadians who need help and assistance will take care of their children’s teeth and health and, of course, put a roof over their head to do so.

Today, I want to talk about what these two benefits are — which is just as important as what they’re not — and how they can make a difference in the lives of low-income Canadians and working families. Let me start with the rental benefit, and what it is not meant to solve. It is not a benefit intended to address the long-term affordable housing problem that the country faces. What it’s meant to do is provide short-term relief to an acute problem of rental increase resulting, in part, from a record 40‑year inflation rate.

According to Rentals.ca’s November report, the average rent in Canada has increased about $100 per month from the pre‑pandemic level in the fall of 2019. The one-time tax benefit of $500 is intended to assist low-income renters with the increase in rent they have experienced. Most of all, Canadian renters have had to dig further into their pockets to pay their rent. However, the rent increase experienced by low-income renters have hurt them disproportionately. The rental benefit is estimated to help 1.8 million low-income renters across the country, and deal with the increase in rent they have experienced. This includes an estimated 17,000 low-income renters in Newfoundland and Labrador; 570,000 in Quebec; 60,000 in Manitoba; and over 700,000 in my home province of Ontario. These are not just statistics. These are individuals who are struggling to deal with rental challenges and to pay their rent on a monthly basis.

While the rental benefit is a targeted, short-term measure, the government, through the National Housing Strategy, has many other long-term initiatives in order to address the challenges associated with ensuring housing is a right — not a privilege — in this country. One such program is the Canada Housing Benefit which the rental benefit is a top-up for. The Canada Housing Benefit is a $4 billion long-term program that provides an average of $2,500 per year in direct support to families and individuals with housing needs. Both of these programs will make a significant difference in the lives of Canadians who are struggling with paying their rent on a monthly basis in this country.

Now I’d like to focus on the dental benefits that will help an estimated 500,000 children under the age of 12 in low-income and middle-income families. This benefit is not meant to cover all the dental care needs of our children, nor is it meant to replace the current provincial, territorial or private plans. It’s also not meant to be a permanent long-term solution for a national children’s dental program. What this dental benefit is meant to be is an interim program to bridge the gap until a permanent national program is put in place. In the interim, the government intends to take the necessary steps to build a comprehensive, long-term program that includes engaging with key stakeholders — including the provinces, the territories, Indigenous organizations, dental associations and industry — to help inform their approach in implementing a long-term Canadian dental care program.

The intent of the dental benefit is to ensure children under the age of 12 in low-income families immediately have access to basic dental care that is not provided through provincial, territorial or private dental plans across this country. The benefit also intends for parents — who do not have the ability to pay out of pocket for their children’s dental care — to apply up front for this through the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. I know there are some senators who believe that the interim benefit could have been better. Some are considering amendments to try and make it so. I first want to remind everyone that this is an interim measure, and I expect the final long-term program that is developed through the consultation I mentioned earlier will not only make a difference in the debate here today, but also a better program in the end. It’s through the consultation process that I would encourage both senators and stakeholders who have ideas on improving the program to make their opinions known — not by holding up the benefit that can help children now.

Second, the government intends this benefit to be ready and implemented in two weeks: on December 1. They have made it clear that to do so, this bill needs to receive Royal Assent by tomorrow. Any delay now risks parents having to wait longer to access the dental care benefit for their children.

I want to use a very personal example, colleagues, to explain how this benefit can help young children. A little over a year ago, my nephew and his wife both died very tragically. They left behind four orphaned boys, all under the age of 12. As our family struggled to take care of them, I know the challenges in raising these four boys to have a decent life will not be easy. Their grandparents, who are old, now have to take on this responsibility. I know this benefit will touch their lives. It will equally touch the lives of many children across this country. The fact of the matter is that in my family, people do their best to help these four boys become responsible adults as we struggle to deal with all of the needs they will encounter in their young lives. It is not easy. It is not easy for the many families who struggle with these challenges to provide basic needs for their children.

As a senator, I came from modest means, so I understand what struggle is all about. For all of us in this chamber, I’m sure each one of us have family members, friends and colleagues who are going to be touched by this benefit.

In conclusion, I hope you have a better understanding of what these two benefits intend to achieve and what they do not intend to achieve. The housing benefit is intended to assist low-income renters with the rental increase they have experienced because of the acute problem of high inflation and not with the systemic problem of the lack of affordable housing in this country. Likewise, the dental benefit is an interim program, not a permanent program, to cover the basic dental needs of children under the age of 12 not otherwise covered under existing plans, while a long-term national solution is developed through consultation.

Colleagues, the short-term and interim measures in the bill can make a real difference right now for low- and middle-income Canadians with the financial pressures of rent increases and ensuring children have access to basic dental care.

Honourable senators, we are approaching the holiday season, when the times are always a little tougher for those in our society who struggle with affordability issues. It is in these times when people worry about their finances and their kids’ well-being. I therefore urge you, colleagues, to keep this in mind and pass this bill quickly so we can assist Canadians who need our help.

I will be available for any questions. Thank you very much.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Plett, thank you for outlining in your speech a number of different examples of mandatory minimum penalties for certain crimes and the relatively low numbers that those are. Some of the examples you gave are very serious crimes where the mandatory minimum sentences were only about four years.

Another one that I wanted to draw the attention of this chamber to, and ask if you agree with is this: What has scarcely been mentioned in this entire debate on this amendment is the fact that the mandatory minimum in Canada for first-degree murder is only 25 years — that there’s a chance for parole after that point — and for second-degree murder, only 10 years.

Given that the mandatory minimums are really quite low when you look at the types of offences that we would look at in the U.S. and other places that many Canadians would perhaps be more familiar with, wouldn’t you agree that those mandatory minimums, being at those low levels, are something that really needs to be considered when we’re talking about upholding those?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on a 15-minute bell? Call in the senators for 5:12 p.m.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Clement negatived on the following division:

Hon. Colin Deacon: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for your speech.

This week there was a very good op-ed in The Hill Times from a Canadian prepaid credit card group talking about how a prepaid credit card for distributing the funds would allow for the funds to be restricted to use in dentistry and eliminate the need for the paper-based audit that has been promised in the future. This financial technology tool is something that I would hope was considered in the development of this program. If it wasn’t, could you perhaps at some point ask the officials why they didn’t consider it, other than it is just something that they viewed as being more complicated and didn’t even explore it? It would be a very easy way of preventing fraud. That is a criticism of a very good program. I would appreciate it if you could just reach out to the officials at some point and see whether or not this was even explored.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for the question.

As you know, there is a desire to get this program and the money that is associated with it as quickly as possible into the hands of parents who need it to help their children get access to basic dental care. In the context of doing so, the government, of course, has looked to the CRA, recognizing the experience they gained from CERB — the Canada Emergency Response Benefit — delivery to Canadians who needed it in a very short period of time. You are raising a valid point, and it should be considered in the future program delivery, working with the provinces and territories. I will certainly raise it with the minister and his staff for consideration for the future program, because I do believe clearly CRA can do this. There are processes in place to ensure they can prevent fraud. As you know, anyone determined to commit fraud can do so regardless of whatever measures you may put in place.

There is also, within the context of the CRA, delivery of this benefit to parents for their children’s needs. There are penalties should someone decide to commit fraud at the same time.

I do recognize you are raising an important point that should be thought about in a very coherent way, and I hope the government will consider that. Thank you.