Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax Changes

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this chamber and speak about something that has been a core gap, an omission in our national health care system for almost half a century.

Canadians are justly proud of our public health care system. It is an accomplishment that defines us as a nation. It is an affirmation that we will take care of each other and our most vulnerable. It is a reflection of our commitment to equality and justice. However, it is not perfect and it is not complete. Many important health services remain uncovered in Canada. For these, patients remain at the mercy of their ability to pay.

Canada's New Democrats are proud to introduce the motion before us today because it would help address one of the most glaring gaps in our public system: dental care.

Our proposal calls on the Liberal government to target its tax plan currently before the House to those earning less than $90,000 per year and use those savings to make a down payment on universal dental care by immediately extending coverage to millions of currently uninsured Canadians.

To be clear, Canadians earning over $90,000 a year do not need a tax cut, but those earning less do need help, and the NDP plan is based on this position.

The omission of dental coverage from our universal health care system is both a pressing public health concern and a social justice issue.

Many would be surprised to learn that the most common non-communicable diseases are oral diseases. Studies have also linked poor dental health to serious health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, dementia, respiratory infections, diabetic complications, renal disease complications, premature birth and low birth rate. Numbers cannot begin to quantify the pain, social impacts, and economic losses suffered by those with untreated dental problems, yet as we speak, 35.4% of Canadians today have no dental insurance, and nearly seven million Canadians avoid the dentist every year because of the cost.

Unsurprisingly, this hurts poor and marginalized Canadians the most. Canada's most vulnerable citizens have the highest rates of dental decay and disease but the worst access to this much-needed service.

According to the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, 50% of low-income Canadians have no dental coverage whatsoever, along with the majority of seniors over the age of 60. Indigenous populations have nearly twice as much dental disease as non-indigenous Canadians, and income-related inequalities in oral health are greater in women than in men.

Moreover, at a time when wages have flatlined and their job prospects have grown increasingly insecure, young people have also seen benefits like dental insurance rapidly scaled back or completely eliminated by employers. Today only 50% of millennials have access to dental insurance. This deficiency harms career prospects and is a matter of fundamental intergenerational inequity. According to Statistics Canada, young Canadians aged 18 to 34 are the most likely group to report cost as a barrier to dental care.

If we can agree that everyone in Canada should have equal access to health care regardless of their age, income, job status or where they live, then we simply cannot justify the continued exclusion of oral health care from our public health care system.

However, at present, Canada ranks second-last in public financing for dental care among OECD countries. The motion before us today would begin to change that. By making a small modification to the government's tax plan, we can extend dental coverage to 4.3 million uninsured Canadians right away.

I will now provide a brief overview of how we can get this done.

In December 2019, the Liberal government announced its intention to increase the basic personal amount tax credit in 2020. It has marketed this proposal as a “middle-class tax cut”. However, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, individuals with net incomes between $103,000 to $160,000 will receive the largest average reduction in their income taxes at $347 annually, while individuals with net incomes below $15,000, the poorest Canadians, will receive the smallest average reduction, at $1.00.

Overall, this tax plan will cost $6.9 billion per year once it is fully implemented. New Democrats believe that this funding should be focused on Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. We are proposing that the government target this tax plan to those making $90,000 per year or less, with a phase-out beginning at $80,000, and use the $1.6 billion in annual savings to invest in dental care for uninsured Canadians with household incomes below $90,000.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, providing dental coverage for uninsured families making less than $90,000, which is the median income in Canada, meaning 50% of Canadians in this country, would cost $1.8 billion in the first year and approximately $830 million for every year after that.

This program would give immediate help to 4.3 million people and save our health care system tens of millions of dollars every year. After all, emergency room visits due to dental emergencies already cost taxpayers at least $155 million annually.

Under the NDP's plan, there would be no cost for individuals with a household income under $70,000, while copayments would be required on a sliding scale for those with a household income between $70,000 and $90,000.

We are proposing comprehensive care for these Canadians. The minimum basket of services covered would include diagnostic services, preventive services, restorative services, endodontic services, periodontal services, prosthodontic services, oral surgery, orthodontic services and adjunctive services as well.

This program would be the next big expansion in our health care system after pharmacare, which the NDP is also driving forward in this Parliament. This program could be administered by the federal government or by provinces and territories upon agreement. Existing provincial and territorial programs that provide the same services could continue.

I wish to conclude my remarks today by outlining the path forward toward full universal dental care in Canada.

During the last election, New Democrats heard from many Canadians who were struggling to afford necessary dental care. We heard heart-rending stories from Canadians in every province and territory of the physical, emotional, social and economic pain of dental illness. That is why at their first meeting following the campaign, the leader of the NDP pressed the Prime Minister to work across party lines in this minority Parliament to address this urgent health concern.

It is ludicrous that we cover the entire body and then carve out the piece of our mouth and cover it from the tonsils back, but leave Canadians uninsured for the tonsils forward. It is absurd.

I was pleased to see the government acknowledge this NDP priority in its Speech from the Throne and I was heartened that the Minister of Health's mandate letter contained a direction to “Work with Parliament to study and analyze the possibility of national dental care.” The NDP is turning a possibility into reality with the motion here today.

I moved the motion at the Standing Committee on Health at the very first committee meeting dealing with business. I was proud that my colleagues accepted my motion to undertake that study on the development of a national dental care program and I call on my colleagues on the health committee to give this study the upmost priority, but as we prepare to embark on the tremendously important task of developing a national dental care program for Canadians, there is no reason we cannot get started right away, because the need is clear and before us we have a realistic plan to achieve it.

I want to pause for a moment and remind my fellow Parliamentarians why we do not have dental care today. The 1964 Royal Commission on Health Services, which formed the original framework of our public health care system, called for the inclusion of dental services. That was always intended to be part of our public health care system. However, it was not brought in at that time simply because there was a shortage of dentists, a shortage so acute that they believed it was impossible to implement a universal system.

Nevertheless, the commission stated explicitly that it believed that it was imperative for the government to immediately establish a public system for children, expectant mothers and public assistance recipients that could be scaled up, as resources expanded, to a universal system. In fact, it said the program was one of the highest priorities among their proposals. Unfortunately, it was never established by any Liberal or Conservative government to this day.

However, today we have turned Canada's dentist shortage into a surplus, and thereby resolved the original impediment to implementing universal dental care.

It is time to roll up our sleeves and begin the work necessary to make this overdue health care service a reality for Canadians. I therefore call on all members to take that first step today. Let us demonstrate our commitment to universal dental care by making a down payment that immediately extends coverage to 4.3 million people, and then we will do the work to make sure every Canadian gets access to necessary dental care on a universal basis, as was originally intended over 50 years ago.

Canadians have waited long enough. It is time to finally ensure that access—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are a bit over the time there. I thought the hon. member was wrapping up, and I think we were pretty close, but in any case, we will go to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words that the member has stated in support of a national dental program. I appreciate the fact that he made reference to the minister's mandate letter, a reference to it being in the throne speech and now the standing committee is conducting a study on it. I would have been more supportive if it had been a motion that asked us as parliamentarians to work with the different stakeholders, in particular the provinces. My colleague knows that when it comes to health care services, the provinces play a critical role in whatever it is. To have that optimum service, the provinces have to be involved.

I am wondering if my colleague could share his thoughts on whether he believes that we have to have the provinces on side, or would he suggest, if we could not get the provinces on side, that we should go it alone as a national government.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this country we really have a couple of different options. It is always open to the federal government to show leadership and to take the lead and extend essential health care coverage to Canadians, or it can work with the provinces and territories on a shared basis. As I pointed out in my speech, both those options are available.

The issue here before us today is that the NDP is taking a federal government initiative, a $6.9-billion tax cut, and instead targeting that tax cut and using the savings to immediately provide dental care to the 50% of Canadians in this country who do not have it now. That does not require anybody else's involvement. That is purely a federal government initiative, and the NDP is pushing the Liberal government to do this.

Ultimately, the way our health care system works is that health care is delivered at the provincial level, and the federal government provides transfer payments. It is all dependent on the federal government showing leadership and providing that funding. There is no reason that this approach could not be proceeded with as well.

I want to leave my hon. colleague with one thing to think about: Dental care is an emergency, and many Canadians are suffering now. They need leadership from the government now. They cannot wait years or decades. They have already waited five decades. The NDP says it is time to act now.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, dental care, as indicated, is very much needed in my riding of Vancouver East. During the lunar new year period, I visited many of the seniors in my community, and without a doubt, the vast majority of them said that this is their number one priority. They desperately need the government to act so that they can have the dental services and support that they need to live healthily. For some of them it is really as desperate as enjoying life, because without proper dental care they cannot eat effectively either.

The Liberals say they cannot support this motion because this matter is being studied at the health committee. I wonder how bringing this motion into place and supporting it would impede the work of the health committee. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Vancouver East for all of her work on health care and for pushing for dental care for her constituents and all Canadians.

However, I would take that objection from my Liberal colleagues more seriously if I had not seen this already once before. They said the same thing when the NDP moved a motion in the House several years ago to move ahead with public pharmacare. They said they could not until the Standing Committee on Health issued its report. Then the committee issued its report and it called for public pharmacare, but they still did not act. Then they said that we had to wait for the Hoskins report. Those working on the Hoskins report did their work, and the Hoskins report issued a call for public pharmacare, and we are still waiting. To this day, the Prime Minister has never uttered a commitment to public pharmacare, nor has a single health minister of the three health ministers since 2015 of this Liberal government. All they keep doing is delaying, and that is after the Liberals promised public pharmacare in 1997. Forgive me if I am not going to take seriously another Liberal standing up saying, “Here's another reason why Canadians have to wait before they get access to dental care”.

It is time to bring in public pharmacare and public dental care now for Canadians instead of giving billions of dollars to oil companies or buying pipelines. They always seem to have money for that. It is time to put that money into the health care of Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard. I look forward to his comments.

I have listened intently to the speeches throughout the day in this esteemed chamber. I think everyone is very passionate about the motion brought forward by our hon. NDP colleagues.

The motion states:

That the House call on the government to change its proposed tax cuts by targeting benefits to those who earn less than $90,000 per year, and use those savings to invest in priorities that give real help to Canadians, including dental coverage for uninsured families making less than $90,000....

We can break this motion down into two parts. I agree, and I think most people in this House will agree, that we need to do more to serve the most vulnerable in our communities. I think all members have heard heartbreaking stories from their constituents. I have had constituents in my office talking about the difficulties they are facing related to dental care, health care or employment. There are a lot of important issues that we as members of the House of Commons should bring forward on behalf of our constituents. Therefore, I do not think we will hear very many people disagree with the need to have more means to help the most vulnerable in our ridings.

I am from Saskatchewan. I was an MLA in Saskatchewan for two terms and eight years. I have heard all the stories about Tommy Douglas. I know our NDP colleagues like to quote Tommy Douglas and talk about him bringing medicare forward. I believe it is one of the great advancements in Canadian history and he should be applauded for that, but he was also a very fiscally conservative individual. There are other quotes here that Mr. Douglas has often said that our hon. colleagues from the NDP do not attribute to him, but I would like to bring one forward. At one point in time, Mr. Douglas stated that if governments do not get out of debt, the decisions are made by the ones who lend the money. In other words, he was saying that, as a government, we need to have balanced budgets. That is something Mr. Douglas took very seriously, because if not, we are giving up some of our sovereignty and some of our ability to make decisions. Bringing forward public health care was very important, but he was also fiscally responsible. An NDP premier is not one of the first people I thought I would be quoting in this House. I hope my colleagues will forgive me. It is important to be fiscally responsible, because then we are able to make better decisions.

Another thing Mr. Douglas knew is we need to have a strong economy. If there is no money there to spend, we cannot spend it on our most vulnerable. That is very much something that should be brought into this motion.

We have had some very disturbing decisions made over the last few days regarding our energy sector. I understand the commitment was $5.6 billion if fully implemented. However, over the last few years we have forgone $120 billion worth of investment into our oil and gas sector, which would have paid for programs for the most vulnerable, for public schools and for public health care. I find it very alarming, to say the least, that we have a motion brought forward by opposition members talking about the need to spend money, and on the other side we have the same people trying to ensure that projects do not go forward that would pay for these programs. At some point in time, that bill has to be paid.

Two days ago, Teck Frontier withdrew its project worth $20 billion. We saw Enbridge withdraw the northern gateway project worth $7.9 billion. We saw the TransCanada Corporation withdraw the energy east project worth $16 billion. We saw Petronas withdraw the Pacific Northwest LNG project worth $36 billion. We saw Aurora LNG withdraw its project worth $28 billion. We saw Prince Rupert LNG withdraw its project worth $16 billion. We saw ExxonMobil withdraw its WCC LNG project worth $25 billion. It is unbelievable.

What all these have in common is that they are all private companies that wanted to invest their shareholder dollars, not public dollars. It is private dollars that they wanted to invest. When those projects go forward, they help pay for some of the programs that we want to have for our most vulnerable people.

Moving forward as a country, we need to understand that the pie is getting smaller. That means there is less for everyone. There are fewer ideas for people to bring forward programs for everyone. There is less opportunity. I have constituents who have very rare diseases that they want covered by the drug formulary. They cost a lot of money.

Where do we get the funds to pay for that? It is through private investment, through oil and gas companies, and through people investing in Canada because they have confidence that our economy is going to be strong. Right now, in the letter that was sent by Teck Frontier's CEO, that confidence to invest in our country is not there. That should be a worry for everyone in this chamber who wants to bring forward motions to spend more money on our most vulnerable, which I agree with. We need to ensure that we have the resources to do that.

I listened intently to my hon. colleague across the way. He was talking about the generic drug program. When I was an MLA, I am quite sure, coming out of the COF conference, the premiers conference, that Premier Ghiz and Premier Wall were commissioned to do a health report that brought forward the generic drug plan to make drugs more affordable for people across the country. I do not believe Premier Ghiz and Premier Wall were NDP premiers.

They were two premiers who got together and had some different philosophical ideas. They brought forward a report to ensure that cheaper generic drugs could be bought in bulk to benefit all Canadians. That is something we benefit from now.

Having people come together from different political stripes is a good thing and brings forward solutions. I am pretty happy that I was able to be a part of that. I learned a lot from Premier Wall. Working with partners is one thing that we learned as the government in Saskatchewan. I was part of the Saskatchewan Party government. That was a combination of Liberals and Conservatives in Saskatchewan coming together and forming a party to make sure that we would have good government.

I appreciate working together with people from across the aisle to bring forward good ideas, good policies and good programs, and to make sure we could be a better government for all Canadians. I believe that is why people sent us to this House.

When I think about this motion, I think about breaking it into two parts. I believe everyone in this chamber thinks that for the most vulnerable in our society, programs need to be in place to ensure that they have a better quality of life. I think everyone in this chamber would agree with that.

The other part is the financial aspect. How do we get there? Conservatives think we need to grow the pie, not just slice it up differently. We need to make the economic pie bigger. We need to ensure that we have more money and that our economy is growing so that we can bring forward these programs for all Canadians, making sure that there is a better quality of life for Canadians.

I believe that is something we need to have a very serious discussion about in this chamber going forward. I think that will happen after we are done these proceedings and are into the emergency debate. Is this a country that allows projects to be built? If it is not, then we need to have a discussion on how we are going to bring forward programs. It is going to be a more difficult discussion. There would be a much smaller pie for us to divide into programs that we want to see for our constituents.

I believe we were sent here to grow this country, to grow our economy and to make sure our children and the next generations have more benefits, more ability to have great jobs and a better quality of life than we had. Going forward, we need to have that conversation to ensure that our economy is growing. We need to make sure we have good discussions about this to ensure that we have good programs for the most vulnerable in our society and so that Canadians have a better quality of life going forward.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question.

The first part is around the foundation of the motion today. We are taking a proposed Liberal tax cut that, when fully implemented, would cost $6.9 billion. We are determining whether we should reduce that by targeting that tax cut at more needy Canadians and use the savings to fund dental care.

Does my hon. colleague agree with the tax cut itself? Does he believe that oral health should be covered by our public health care system, or does he think that part of the body should not be covered?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately when we start talking about Liberal tax cuts, I do not believe any of the numbers the Liberals put forward. I have not had a conversation on what numbers are true and what numbers are not. It is very difficult for me on this side of the House. They brought forward a lot of small business tax changes two summers ago. They were going to try to ensure that small businesses were hampered and were unable to do better business. When we see these proposed tax cuts, I do not believe the numbers. The Liberals always leave some room for imagination.

On the second question, the programs we can put in place to ensure people have a higher quality of life is of course important. We need to ensure we are able to fund these programs on a go-forward basis and have the ability to ensure that people who need the coverage have it. I believe all members in this chamber would find this very important and we should have a conversation about it.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for bringing up Tommy Douglas. Maybe some day he will be on the $5 bill. We never know.

I am of the age when our school systems provided dentists and optometrists who would come to the schools. Then all of a sudden, the budgets coast to coast were squeezed and they were no longer in the school. The NDP is right in some of this, that the most vulnerable do not have the choice. They do not have the funds for dentists, optometrists and so on.

I agree with the member for Regina—Lewvan. We need to create wealth in the country to give our social programs the love they need right now, and we have not seen it under the Liberal government .

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, although my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood and I are not of the same vintage, when I was in elementary school, for the first couple of years dentists would come in and check our teeth. However, because the provincial government was so far in debt, those programs were taken away. I remember getting the fluoride treatments and being checked.

This an example of when the economy shrinks and the government does not have the money to run these programs, we lose them. I think that ties in very nicely with the point of my presentation, that we need a strong economy and we need to grow the economy so these services, once they are there, are not taken away.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the previous question, not about the blinders the Conservatives have with respect to what is actually happening in the economy but on the schools

When we talk about these national programs, in particular in the area of health care, it is very important for us to recognize the provinces play a dominate role in that whole area.

There is a need for the national government to work with provinces and territories. When we look at school divisions, they are in essence creatures of provincial legislation. Through the school divisions, very good quality dental services could be provided. It is a great gateway that could ultimately complement a national dental program in the future.

Would the member not agree that we should be allowing the standing committee to do the fine work it can do and see where that ultimately takes us. If this is something we can make happen, why would we not do it? However, we first need to do the homework.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am so excited my colleague said that we had blinders on with respect to our economy. He and his colleagues across the way have been bringing up numbers that just do not add up.

Canada's unemployment is higher than the G7 average and higher than the U.K., Germany and Japan. Growth is flat. The United States outgrew Canada in the last three or four years by 50%. Incomes are stalled. Since the Liberals came to office, middle-class incomes have been flat, rising $35 a year compared to $450 under the years of the Stephen Harper government. People are coming up short. Poor incomes and rising costs have driven insolvency rates to 10-year highs. There are more people going bankrupt in Canada than ever before. We do—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining the debate on the NDP motion. I again thank my constituents for sending me here to represent them in this cathedral of our democracy and to speak to the motion.

When I was looking over both the text of the motion and listening to the debate so far, I like the first part, but I have a problems with the second part. The first part reads:

That the House call on the government to change its proposed tax cuts by targeting benefits to those who earn less than $90,000 per year, and use those savings to invest in priorities that give real help to Canadians...

The first part is a rich mouthful. There is a lot there for Conservatives to agree with. We want to see more tax savings for Canadians with more reasonable means, people who are working class or trying to get into the middle class, a term that the government cannot define although it has a minister responsible for it.

It is the second part I have a problem with. It says, “including dental coverage for uninsured families making less than $90,000 per year.”

That gives me a heavy groan. That is a Yiddish proverb, “A rich mouthful, a heavy groan”. The motion is exactly that.

I could get completely behind the first part. It is rich in a lot of things I would like to see done for Canadians earning less than $90,000.

However, it gives me a heavy groan when I see after the comma what is basically an intervention into a provincial jurisdiction. I am sure every Bloc member will appreciate this, because it is a provincial jurisdiction. It is up to our provinces to provide this. The Alberta government provides 21 different public service plans in health care, including drug plans and mental health plans that are created for our residents.

Let us talk numbers. My colleague who spoke before me talked about numbers. We have a $26.6 billion deficit. We are accumulating debt for future generations to pay off.

If we go back to budget 2015, it expected $263.2 billion worth of spending. Budget 2019 said that by the 2022-23 fiscal year, we would be spending $358.4 billion. That is an incredible increase in financial resources that the Government of Canada is expending. We do not have a surplus in any of those years. It is all debt and deficit spending.

This is where I start having problems. When I look at these numbers, in budgets 2015, 2019 and 2020, we would be spending about $302.6 billion. Budget 2019 actually showed that we were spending $329.4 billion. We have a structural deficit in the country. The government is spending more money on programs than it is bringing in.

I want tax cuts, especially for lower-income Canadians. It is targeted at the right place. The NDP has it right at the beginning of the motion and then completely loses the story on the back end when we look at the numbers and what is going on with public finances.

I have looked at the main estimates and old age security payments for 2019-20 are $42.7 billion. It is one of the biggest programs in government right now. Guaranteed income supplement payments are $12.8 billion. Looking at these numbers, what strikes me the most is that in the past two years old age security has gone up by $4.5 billion in spending. That curve does not go down; it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

This is usually targeted toward low-income seniors who are receiving these payments. Obviously, we want to do right by our seniors who helped build this great country and set us on the right path to build an even greater country. Whatever we can do to make Canada better is something for which we should be striving. The problem is that we need to bring in enough revenue to pay for all these things.

The government in the last little while has announced $41.3 billion of new spending over five years, unbudgeted in any way. It is absolutely ridiculous. How can we make right by people?

The previous member from Saskatchewan mentioned Roy Romanow. He was on a West of Centre podcast. He talked about fiscal responsibility, ensuring savings and thrift in government. These are all things with which I agree. Those Prairie NDPers are cut from a different cloth. It is a cloth that I sometimes agree with, not always but sometimes, especially at the provincial level. On the podcast, he said that when he took over the Saskatchewan government, it had $14 billion in debt. He talked about the reality.

He said that if we do not get out of debt when we have a deficit and are accumulating more debt, decisions will be made by those who lend out money: bankers. They will make the decisions for us. Bondholders will be making public-policy decisions for us, because as credit ratings begin to downgrade, as the Moody's of the world, financial investors and speculators start making judgment calls on whether we are running our finances correctly, they will constrain our ability to make the right decisions for the residents in our provinces.

I will give the House an example from my province of Alberta.

In 1990, when Premier Ralph Klein took over government, there was a terrible situation: a massive deficit, a large volume of debt. At that time, he tasked Stockwell Day and Jim Dinning, successive treasurers, to get him back on track. It required the closure of entire government departments. They were not doing this because they had some great love for putting civil servants out of work. They did so because those who were lending them money told them they would not lend out one more penny. They hit the debt wall.

What happens when we hit the debt wall? We are incapable of borrowing and of paying debt interest. When debt interest becomes the second largest line item in our budget, we have a spending problem and we have to stop. Those who suffer the most when those decisions have to be made are those who earn less than $90,000. They are lucky if they have an income. Usually they are losing their jobs at that moment.

There came an oil and gas boom on the royalty side, specifically for natural gas, that helped Alberta get itself out of debt. By 2002-03, Alberta had paid its debt in full. There was a great sign that Ralph Klein used to hold. He was proud of it. That is an important image to remember. It has happened to provinces before, and there is no reason why it cannot happen to the federal government.

One of my constituents sent me an email about the unconstitutional carbon tax. The Court of the Queen's Bench in Alberta has decided to call it a constitutional Trojan horse. We all knew this from the start. It was just an attempt to get more revenue into government coffers.

I remember this discussion at finance committee and asking a question about it, the same question that Leon in my riding asked: When are Albertans going to get a complete refund of every single dollar they have spent on this unconstitutional carbon tax in their province? I am not talking about the rebate. I am talking about 100% of the cost that was imposed, basically illegally, on Albertans, in my home province. That is what I want to know from the government. I want to hear the Liberals answer this question.

Difficult decisions were made by Roy Romanow, who was mentioned by the previous member. Premier Romanow had to close 52 rural hospitals. He said this on the podcast and I had to look it up afterward. I am guessing that did not make him a very popular premier, which he readily admitted afterwards, but service delivery had obviously changed in health care and those were difficult decisions to make. Those are not decisions I want to see a future government constrained by because bondholders, bankers and speculators are betting on whether Canada can pay off its debt and betting on whether Canada will ever get into a position where the deficit has been reduced to zero and we are on track to returning some of the money.

There is no great recession going on right now worldwide. There is no reason we cannot return to a surplus budget. There is only one political reason for it: The Liberal government is incapable of stopping its spending.

To return to my Yiddish proverb, “a rich mouthful”, the motion gets this right. People earning under $90,000 a year deserve greater attention from the government to lighten their tax burden. Working-class families, single-income families and single-parent families do not need to pay more in taxes. They should be paying less. The problem is that establishing a new government program now, after $41.3 billion of more spending, is the wrong way to go.

I hope other members in the House will reflect upon these numbers. We are in a bad fiscal situation. Eventually, the big companies that do the ratings will take away our AAA credit rating. I do not want to be here when a government has to announce large budgetary cutbacks.

Just to repeat, this is provincial jurisdiction. It is up to a province to decide how it wishes to spend its money. It is not for the federal government to intervene in what should otherwise be completely up to the provinces to determine.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was in the House when the Harper Conservative government ran deficits every single year from 2008 to 2015. It ran seven straight successive deficits. As a matter of fact, most of the debt that is piled up in this country was acquired under Conservative governments and Liberal governments. The Department of Finance did a study a few years back and found that per year of government in this country at the provincial and federal levels, the party that balanced the budget the highest percentage of the time was the New Democrats. That is a fact of this country.

I want to challenge the member on the idea that health care is purely provincial. The federal government, through the Canada Health Act, sets out principles and then negotiates with the provinces. If the provinces deliver health care and meet the requirements of the act, they are entitled to transfer payments.

Does my friend agree that we can do the same thing with dental care simply by expanding our system to cover this neglected part of our body that has been excluded for no reason other than a historical anomaly? Does he not understand or agree that dental care was always intended to be part of our medicare system, going right back to the 1964 Hall report? Can he explain why he does not support having dental care covered like every other part of our body is?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, thankfully the great citizens of this country have never found it necessary to put a federal NDP government in charge of our public treasury, and I hope it stays that way. That way, the New Democrats can never pretend they had a chance to balance anything.

This is an area of provincial jurisdiction. The provinces never want to see the federal government intervene directly into it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

So is health care.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I hear the member heckling me because he does not like my answer, but that is simply the matter.

We have a $26.6-billion deficit. In my home province of Alberta, diagnostic services are a private area. They are paid for publicly but are privately administered. The Province of Quebec does it differently. It does this the way it wants to. It is the same thing in every single province. Each provincial government runs a health service, and provinces can determine how they wish to operate it and how they wish to provide the services. That is the way this great Confederation of ours is supposed to work.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague from Alberta, a man who is very well known in Quebec because he spent a good part of his childhood living there, the opportunity to talk about how Quebec sees dental care.

Is this an area of shared jurisdiction or does it fall under Quebec's jurisdiction?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

With regard to his question about Quebec, I do not know whether the province offers this service to its residents or not. That is a choice that Quebeckers need to make with their provincial government.

What I do know is that, in my province of Alberta, we have a provincial government that can decide when and how to provide a given service, such as dental care. The situation is different in my province.

When I was very young and lived in Quebec, dental care was offered to those aged 18 and under, and the government paid for it through the health care system.

Of course, things are done differently in my province. However, this is a decision that every province has to make.

If we look at the federal government's fiscal situation, it is clear that we simply do not have the money for another federal program imposed on our provinces.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway pointed out, very correctly, that the Conservatives actually have the worst record of balancing budgets and paying down debt. The reason for this is very simple: They love handouts. They will throw billions of dollars at the private sector, in the same way that the Liberals do.

However, when it comes to regular people and working families, the Conservatives and the Liberals have no money left. Here we have a proposal that basically changes a tax cut that helps people who earn six-figure incomes. Instead of putting money in their pockets, this would ensure that the four and a half million people who do not have access to dental care have basic dental care.

Why are the Conservatives so opposed to helping support working families?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, the easy answer is that the math does not agree. I know that is difficult for the member to accept.

Second, as I remember, it was his leader at the time, Jack Layton, who demanded more spending and even larger deficits and more debt. It was a deal the New Democrats had signed with the other opposition parties to topple the government. They could just look back to the same document at the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I am proud to support the motion, as it would help the majority of people in my riding. What will not help that majority is the current Liberal tax cut.

The PBO found that the Liberal tax proposal will cost $6.9 billion annually when it is fully implemented. The largest benefits would go to individuals making at least $113,000, who would get $325 per year. This would not help the majority of people who live in my riding.

In London—Fanshawe, the average income for an individual in 2015 was a little over $30,000. The average household income was just under $60,000. This cut would not benefit those people. Also 47% of people throughout Canada would not benefit from this tax cut.

This is typical Liberal policy that the government has put forward. I can look to the previous choices the Liberal government has made. There was $14 billion in corporate tax cuts announced in the 2018 fall economic statement. In June 2019, the PBO stated that Canadian corporations may be avoiding up to $25 billion a year in federal income taxes. The Liberal government could go after this. The Conservatives have been talking about increasing the government's coffers. The Liberals could do this, but they refuse.

From CRA's own records, we see that the wealthy and corporations hold at least 9% of Canada's total financial wealth offshore, resulting in an annual loss of at least $8 billion in government revenues. What is evident is the Liberals' determination to give the wealthiest Canadians even more of a share of that wealth.

It is clear that this Liberal plan would not help my constituents. However, what would help them is dental care coverage. Statistically, we know that every dollar spent by a government on a social program is worth five times that much to the economy. The dental program that we are proposing would save households $1,200 per year.

Canadians spend approximately $12 billion a year on dental services overall. Some of this is recovered through insurance, but a great deal comes out of people's pockets. In fact, six million Canadians avoid going to the dentist or receiving care because the cost is so prohibitive. Besides tooth decay, gum disease and tooth loss, a person's oral health is linked to other illnesses such as type 2 diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Inflammation seems to be associated with these diseases because bacteria flourish in plaque.

Publicly funded dental care programs need to be universal and provide essential care to those most in need, including children in low-income families, seniors living in institutional care, people with disabilities, the homeless, refugees and immigrants, indigenous people and those on social assistance.

All provinces and territories pay for an in-hospital dental surgery and some have prevention programs for children. Also, a number of ad hoc and charitable programs provide dental care to the poor. Many of them run out of Canada's 10 schools of dentistry, but these programs are a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed.

Canada has one of the lowest rates of publicly funded dental care in the world. According to a report by the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, it is only 6% of total spending. Even the U.S. has a higher public share, at 7.9%. Many European countries include dental care in their universal health programs. In Finland, for example, 79% of dental care is publicly funded.

The cost to the health care system overall is significant as well. Imagine a patient with an untreated tooth infection. At the low end, a trip to the hospital ER for dental pain costs the health care system $124. If the person needs to be hospitalized, that cost jumps to over $7,000 per visit. This is hard to justify considering this could have been treated earlier at a fraction of the cost if the infected tooth had been removed. It is only logical.

Many people without dental health coverage live with pain and discomfort to the point that they end up in the emergency room to have a tooth pulled or, worse, end up dealing with other illnesses linked to their poor oral health. What are the costs to our health care system to admit people to the hospital for something more severe when they could have been proactively visiting their dentist? Canadians take sick leave, which costs the Canadian economy about $16.6 billion annually. We could create a healthier Canadian economy with healthier Canadians.

These are just the health aspects, but what about the social aspects? Oral pain, missing teeth or oral infection can influence the way a person speaks, eats and socializes. These problems can reduce a person's quality of life by affecting their physical, mental and social well-being. People with bad teeth can be stigmatized, both in social settings and in finding employment.

In many conversations about the need for a universal dental care program, our leader, the member for Burnaby South, has spoken specifically about a woman he met on the campaign trail who was missing several teeth. She was embarrassed to speak to him. She told him that she found it difficult to find a job that paid more than minimum wage and that she would love to advance in her field, but felt her oral health and appearance were a hindrance.

I can tell members that when I am in my constituency and when I was on those doorsteps, I ran into this situation all the time. So often I engaged with folks in London who faced that exact same problem. Too often we treat the idea of dental care as a choice, and if a parent or an individual cannot afford care for themselves or their family, they are judged, but the problem lies in our system of care, or, to be more realistic, the lack of that system.

Dental care cannot continue to be treated as an unnecessary cosmetic procedure, privately funded and only for the lucky few, and excluded from medicare. Health care must take a full body approach. We cannot have a society in which only the rich are allowed to have good teeth and good health. That is not the Canada I want.

We know that the Liberals have no trouble working for the richest. They recently spent public money on big, profitable, well-connected companies like Loblaws and Mastercard and on subsidies to the oil and gas sector, but now it is time to show up for the working class, for families who need that change.

New Democrats have a solution. Instead of spending $6 billion of federal revenue on something that excludes 47% of Canadians, a huge majority of people in my riding, and only gives marginal amounts to those who earn under $90,000, an investment of $1.6 billion of that program can help everyone. This program would give immediate help to 4.3 million people and save our health care system tens of millions of dollars every year. That is why I am proud to support this motion.