Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Opposition Motion — Proposed tax changes

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been travelling across the country meeting with Canadians. Everywhere I went Canadians told me that the Canada child benefit has supported them. They also mentioned that the new tax cut we are proposing would make a difference, with more money in their pockets. Many measures we have proposed will help middle-class Canadians in their day-to-day lives.

We know we still have work to do, and that is why we are working to make sure we propose different measures. We must make sure we understand what Canadians need and which measures we should be proposing next.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be splitting my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton today.

I would like to thank my friends in the NDP for bringing this motion forward and giving us the opportunity to talk about the Liberal government's failed record when it comes to tax policy.

As some members know, I enjoy listening to music, from bands like The Guess Who, who happen to hail from my hometown of Winnipeg, and The Beatles, and from artists like Jim Croce and Frank Sinatra, to name a few. When artists have been around long enough, they will usually release a greatest hits album. Today, I would like to produce a greatest hits album for the Liberal government. I think an appropriate title would be “the Liberals' greatest hits of failed tax policy”.

Although this album was not supposed to be released yet, I will spend the next nine minutes or so giving my colleagues a sneak preview. The lead-off track on this album, which is one of my favourites, is called “the budget will balance itself”, written by the professor of peoplekind himself, the Prime Minister of Canada.

As a follow-up, he hiked up taxes on low-income families and then said they do not pay any taxes, seemingly unaware of the fact that they do. During a time of economic prosperity, the Liberals are running massive, endless deficits that will force even higher taxes on Canadians.

There are higher Canada pension plan premiums. They also eliminated the children's fitness tax credit and children's arts tax credit, making it harder for young families to afford these important programs. Despite the fact that their mantra has become “low carbon”, they axed the public transit tax credit, which means fewer people can afford transit passes. They are paying $600 million to the media, picking and choosing which media organizations are winners and which are losers, an Orwellian plan, to be sure, and one all Canadians should reject. It is no wonder half of Canadians say they are $200 away from insolvency each month. They are literally being taxed into bankruptcy.

Then there is the carbon tax, a massive tax grab that makes life more expensive for everyone and will not do anything to reduce emissions. In the last election, Canada's Conservatives put forward a real plan to protect the environment, including measures like the green home tax credit, which would have encouraged Canadians to make their homes more energy efficient. It would have incentivized green tech, making Canada a world leader. Since the Liberals came to power, 81% of middle-income Canadians are seeing higher taxes.

I am happy to note with respect to the environment that more Canadians voted for the Conservative Party of Canada's environmental plan than any other party. Our plan, unlike the Liberal plan, did not include an unfair carbon tax that penalizes Canadians for everyday activities. Especially given the winters we have in Manitoba, a carbon tax will do nothing other than penalize people who have to heat their homes when it is -30°C.

There is some potential relief on the horizon. Yesterday, the Alberta Court of Appeal found the carbon tax to be unconstitutional. I hope the federal government listens to the Court of Appeal and respects its decision and its jurisdiction. Part of the majority 4-1 decision read as follows: “The Act is a constitutional Trojan horse.” That is strong language from the court. It continues, “Almost every aspect of the provinces' development and management of their natural resources...would be subject to federal regulation”.

The next hit on the hit list is “welfare for billionaires”. What a concept: We tax the poor to pay the rich. The Liberals are like a reverse Robin Hood. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, and for some reason the Liberals have it backward. They tax the poor into bankruptcy and give the money to billionaires.

They gave $12 million to Loblaws to buy refrigerators. My guess is that Loblaws can afford to buy its own energy-efficient fridges. I checked, and as of 4 p.m. yesterday, Loblaws had a market cap of $25.2 billion. There was also the $40 million given to BlackBerry. As of 4 p.m. yesterday, BlackBerry had a market cap of $4.2 billion.

Then there is my favourite. I call it the $50-million trifecta. There was the $50-million handout to Mastercard. As of 4 p.m. yesterday, Mastercard has a market cap of $322.8 billion. Also, $50 million went to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which repeatedly engages in funding anti-Semitic activities. There is also the $50 million that went to a late-night TV host, Trevor Noah, by tweet.

There is $50 million here, $50 million there, $50 million everywhere. I wonder who is next.

I know a few organizations that could use this money. Maybe if they ask the Prime Minister nicely, he will tweet yet another $50-million pledge. It is worth a try.

Then there is the CRA. The government's motto should be “Pay us more; we'll treat you worse.” In the recently-released “Serving Canadians Better” report, the CRA reported that 83% of Canadians had an experience that did not meet their needs. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave the CRA a grade of D, and 41% of those who called the CRA received incomplete or incorrect information, a sad state to be sure.

Had it not been for the Conservative Party's pressuring the government from this side of the House, we would have had policies like reducing the accessibility to the disability tax credit for type 1 diabetics from 80% to 20%. Also, in October of 2017, the CRA tried to list employee discounts as taxable benefits, going after waiters and waitresses and restaurants for their employee discounts. In December of 2016, it came to light that the Liberals were considering taxing employer-provided health and dental plans.

Let us talk about the small business tax changes. It was in the middle of the summer of 2017, when Canadians were enjoying the hot weather and spending time with their families, that the government decided to quietly table tax changes when it did not think anyone was paying attention. These changes would drastically alter the lives of thousands of small business owners and families. Yes, small business people who were part of the middle class or working hard to join it had the rug pulled out from under them.

The government tried to hike taxes by 73% on small business investment, made changes to the taxes on splitting income and passive income and refused to make intergenerational family business sales easier, making it more expensive to sell a business to a stranger than to a family member. Remember that hot weather I mentioned? While Canadians were enjoying a nice cold beer in the sun, what did the government do? It raised taxes on beer too. This is sacrilege. I cannot think of anything more Canadian than an ice cold beer.

More recently, the government proposed an interest deductibility cap for businesses. This would be a disaster for all businesses and would have serious marketplace repercussions for banks, REITs, publicly traded securities and pension funds, to name a few.

I will start to wrap up now, but I want to let my colleagues on the other side of the House in on a secret. My goal today was to not only address the motion from my friends in the NDP, but eviscerate the government's failed tax policy initiatives and finish with a flourish.

At the end of the day, the Liberal proposal to increase the basic personal amount is a nice gesture. As Conservatives, we believe that people should pay less tax and get more value for their dollars. Canadians deserve to get ahead and not just get by.

It is not easy to find a humorous quote about taxes, but I think I might have. Here it is: “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” Who said that? It was the greatest genius of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, who discovered the theory of relativity. This man is the father of modern physics and he could not understand the tax code. What we truly need is tax simplification and comprehensive tax reform, not delivering tax policy on a piecemeal basis, as this measure does.

What do we get for these exorbitant taxes? We get runaway deficits; a budget that, contrary to the Prime Minister's belief, does not balance itself; and Canadians who are less than $200 from insolvency at the end of the month. It seems that the more we pay, the less we get. The hill of beans and half cup of coffee per week the Liberals have proposed for 20 million taxpayers will do little to relieve the massive tax burden that the government has foisted and piled onto Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I work with my colleague on the finance committee. I am a little perplexed by his conclusion. He said that the number of tax changes is relatively small. He is absolutely right about that, but he would know from his riding, as we know from ridings across the country, that people are struggling to pay for basic dental care, while other countries, like those in the United Kingdom and the European Union, provide basic dental care. The cost to the Canadian taxpayer from people who go to emergency rooms for dental care is over $150 million a year.

I agree with the member that the government could take a much better approach, but in a minority Parliament, Conservative votes can be determinative on this issue. There is no doubt that people in his riding and right across the country need access to basic dental care. We are paying more by not having access to it than we would by putting it into place.

I gather from my colleague's comments that he might not be prepared to support this common-sense motion that the NDP has put together. If not, why not?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the vast majority of Canadians have affordable dental coverage through private plans. There is an issue, granted, with respect to some people who may not have coverage. In my home province of Manitoba, the University of Manitoba has a program in its dentistry school where people who cannot afford dental care or insurance come to have their teeth cleaned or whatever dental work they might need.

I am happy to hear the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity say that this issue is now being studied by Parliament. I will look forward to the thoughtful report that will come out of that study so that we can make the right decisions for Canadians.

[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]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to “greatest hits”. I want to reflect on some of the greatest hits: a tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%; a tax decrease for Canada's middle class; tax fairness, income sprinkling and passive income; a small business tax cut from 12% to 9%; close to a billion dollars in two budgets to go after tax evaders; enhancing the working income tax benefit by an additional $500 million per year, starting in 2019.

When we have had tax measures, such as reducing the middle class tax, the Conservatives voted against them. When we had the tax increase to Canada's wealthiest 1%, the Conservatives voted against it. Can the member explain why the Conservatives would have voted against those tax changes?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, at least the Conservative part of this side of the House, we take absolutely no lessons from the Liberal Party when it comes to tax policy. The Liberals have made life so much harder for Canadians and they do not even know it.

The tax changes on small business were absolutely devastating to small business people all over this country, all of whom were working hard to join the middle class. The Liberals have failed small business owners across this country.

The carbon tax has made it almost impossible for a number of industries just to get by. We have heard many comments in this House over the last number of weeks about simple things like the cost in agriculture to dry grain. The carbon tax is punishing businesses that have no option.

We take no lessons from that party when it comes to taxes. We were going to bring in a universal tax cut and scrap the carbon tax. What are the Liberals going to do, other than give people half a cup of coffee a day with this basic personal amount exemption?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the NDP motion regarding the Liberal plan to increase the basic personal amount from $12,298 to $15,000.

Before I address the substance of the motion, this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to rise in the House since the last election to give a speech, and I want to thank the constituents of St. Albert—Edmonton for their vote of confidence. It was an overwhelming vote of confidence of 61%, which was 16% higher than in 2015, and I am very humbled by that.

It would not have been possible without all of the individuals who worked so hard on my campaign, who believed in me. While I cannot name all of them, I will name two who worked harder than anyone other than perhaps myself and they are my parents, Tom and Rita Cooper. In fact, they may have worked harder than I worked.

I will say to all of the residents of St. Albert—Edmonton, just as I did in the last Parliament, that although I am not perfect, I will do everything that I can to take their issues and priorities here to the House and be their voice in Ottawa.

Turning to the motion before the House and the issue of increasing the basic personal amount to $15,000 from $12,298, let me say that this is nothing more than a Liberal middle-class tax gimmick. This is a government that talks a good game about the middle class. Indeed, the Prime Minister even appointed a minister responsible for middle class prosperity to demonstrate the Prime Minister's apparent concern for middle-class Canadians, how caring he is and always from the heart out.

It is certainly interesting that, when the minister appeared before the finance committee, she was unable to explain her mandate. She was asked by my colleague, the member for Edmonton Centre and again today in the House to define what constitutes a middle-class Canadian. She could not answer the question. However, I digress, because the fact is, despite all of the talk, what matters is not words but action, and the actions of the government time and again are to make life less affordable for middle-class Canadians.

For a government that is so preoccupied with the middle class, it sure has a strange way of showing it. This, after all, is a government that scrapped tax credits that benefited middle-class Canadians. This is a government that scrapped the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the student textbook tax credit, the public transit tax credit and I could go on.

However, not to be outdone, the government decided to jack up CPP, taking $2,200 out of the wallets of the average middle-class Canadian family. This is some way of showing its love for the middle class, nickel-and-diming them and taking money out of their wallets.

Of course, there is the massive tax on everything, the carbon tax, which as my friend, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley noted just yesterday the Alberta Court of Appeal determined to be a “constitutional Trojan horse”. Nonetheless, the government is adamant about imposing a massive tax on middle-class Canadians. The government would say, “Don't worry, be happy, we delivered a middle-class tax cut”.

We heard the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity refer to the Liberal middle-class tax cut, which sounds like a good idea.

Who could be against a middle-class tax cut? Like anything, the devil is in the details. For example, if one earned between $62,000 and $78,000, how much would that Canadian save under the Liberal middle-class tax cut? That sounds like a middle-class Canadian to me. The answer is $117. Now, is that $117 a day, a week or a month? No. It is $117 a year. How much does that work out to a week? The answer is $2.25, not even enough to purchase one extra-large regular coffee at Tim Hortons. So much for the Liberal so-called middle-class tax cut. The Liberal so-called middle-class tax cut is a Liberal middle-class tax gimmick, not to be outdone by the latest Liberal middle-class tax gimmick of increasing the basic personal amount.

I say, with respect to the increase that the Liberals are proposing, it is too little, too late. It is too late because Canadians would not see the full benefit for four years. I say it is too little because by the time they do, a large part of that increase will be gobbled up by inflation. While the benefit to Canadians is not going to be all that much, having regard to inflation, the government says $550, $600 for the average Canadian family. That is less than the average $800 that middle-class Canadians have seen in terms of their taxes going up, not down, under the Liberals. For this nominal benefit to some middle-class Canadians, it is going to come at an enormous cost.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the cost of this Liberal middle-class tax gimmick will be $21 billion, at a time when the government is running a deficit of $26.6 billion, $7 billion more than projected with nearly $30 billion of deficits for the fiscal years ahead, with no end in sight. The Minister of Middle Class Prosperity talked about the government's fiscal anchor, debt-to-GDP ratio, which she says is going down, except it has actually gone up this year from 30.8% to 31%, and that is before taking into account the $55 billion of spending promises that the Liberals made in the last election.

What middle-class Canadians deserve is action. They do not deserve more talk. They do not deserve more empty promises. They do not deserve more gimmicks. Canadians deserve broad-based tax relief. It is something that Conservatives committed to. It is something we intend to deliver on should we be entrusted with the confidence of Canadians, which I expect will happen, and cannot happen soon enough.

In the meantime, we will hold the government to account for the fact that it has made life more unaffordable for everyday Canadians, all the while mortgaging the future generations in Canada with higher taxes, higher deficits and more debt.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. The Minister of Middle Class Prosperity misled the House by claiming that her government introduced the universal child care benefit, an initiative her party vigorously opposed when the Conservative—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate. The hon. member may try to raise it during her questions and comments or during her speech. It is not a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague speaks very eloquently and I enjoy working with him on the finance committee, but I remain perplexed by the Conservatives' approach on this issue.

They admit that the offering of those tax changes by the Liberal Party to Canadians would have very little impact on families that are struggling with record family debt. At least half of Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet in any given month. The Conservatives are not prepared to make the logical conclusion that the best way to make sure that this measure has impact on Canadians is to invest in basic dental care for Canadians in his riding and right across the country. I am perplexed by the contradiction.

Can Conservatives understand the importance of making sure basic dental care is available for all Canadians?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoy working with the member on the finance committee.

As my colleague the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley said in response to the same question from the hon. member, a vast majority of Canadians are already covered. The government has undertaken to study the issue at the health committee, and I look forward to the study and to reading the report.

I have a great deal of skepticism that a one-size-fits-all national dental care program is the answer to the few Canadians who are not covered.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that I am delighted that the health committee, which includes Conservatives, is going to study this idea and that the government made the choice to put it in the mandate letter to the Minister of Health, and now the NDP is onside.

Could the member talk about the bill? The last two Conservative members, who I assume are the experts on this topic because the party put them up for this opposition day motion, did not mention one word about the bill in their opening speeches. Maybe that member could comment on the bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I spoke about the substance of the issue before us, which is the Liberal increase to the basic personal amount. I reiterate it is nothing more than a Liberal middle-class tax gimmick, and we oppose it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The member stated that he felt that providing dental care would not really help Canadians. I would suggest to him that if he talks to people, he will find that there are literally millions of Canadians who do not have basic dental care now. In reality, that is causing a crisis in emergency rooms because they cannot handle all of the people coming for dental emergencies.

Does the member understand that it does not make a lot of sense to spend $150 million getting inappropriate health care in emergency rooms when basic dental care will make sure those people are taken care of?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I simply reiterate that I am not convinced that a one-size-fits-all national plan is the answer in the same way I am not convinced that a one-size-fits-all national pharmacare program is the answer.

If there ever was an opportunity to move forward with a program like that, the Liberal government is making it all the more difficult with its out-of-control spending and massive deficits and massive debt, which I hope the NDP, like us, would encourage it to rein in.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

The Bloc Québécois is a social democratic party. We feel strongly about redistributing wealth and ensuring equal opportunities for all. We fully support the principle of progressive taxation, and we believe it should be implemented to a greater degree. The idea is that the wealthiest contribute more to funding public services, which are universal and used by everyone.

On that note, it troubles us that the big Canadian banks are not taxed heavily enough. It is not like these companies could relocate to another country. They are in a protected market. Furthermore, I cannot overlook the fact that these multinational corporations and banks still have legal access to tax havens, which means they do not contribute as much to the public purse as they should. The rest of the population suffers, because they receive lower-quality services while paying more taxes and fees.

As everyone knows, we think quality health care is important. We believe that a person who falls ill has basic needs and is entitled to comprehensive care. Unfortunately, the current lack of funding means that many people do not have access to the care they need. That goes for prescription drugs and dental care too. In this day and age, it makes no sense that a person with dental problems would not be able to get the care they need and see a dentist. Dental problems can be very painful.

Today's motion is problematic. Dental care is an aspect of health care, and health care is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. Ottawa's role with respect to public services and health is to provide as much funding as possible, but Ottawa has not been doing that for quite some time. This problem goes all the way back to 1996, which, as it happens, was after the Quebec referendum.

Ottawa decided to deal with its debt problem by slashing transfers for health, social services and education, even though expenses are rising faster in those areas than anywhere else, as we can see from budgets tabled by Quebec and the provinces. Health and education costs go up year after year, but Ottawa is providing less and less money to cover those costs.

Originally, Ottawa promised to cover half of our health care spending. Ottawa was supposed to match every dollar spent by Quebec. This equality was completely wiped out at the end of the 1990s and the federal government has been retreating year after year ever since no matter who is in power in the House. Even though the total amount increases every year, the percentage of the federal government's contribution keeps decreasing. Quebec is now asking that Ottawa fund at least a quarter of health care spending. We are well below that and the percentage keeps going down every year.

In the last Parliament, the Liberal government pompously announced a plan to reinvest in health care. At the end of the day, it just cancelled the Conservatives' cuts and added a few crumbs, all while interfering in this jurisdiction. At the time, Quebec's health minister, Dr. Gaétan Barrette, even accused the Liberal government in Ottawa of engaging in predatory federalism. Coming from a Quebec Liberal minister, that is saying something.

There is a consensus on this in Quebec City. Every year, the Government of Quebec asks Ottawa to make an annual reinvestment of 6% to make up for lost ground and get the federal government's share to a quarter of health care spending. There is also a consensus among provincial governments who are all calling for an annual increase of 5.2% in federal spending on health. Between Quebec and the provinces, everyone agrees that it is important for the federal government to make up for lost ground.

On that, we have to take into account the aging population, since seniors require more health care, which is more expensive. At the other end of the spectrum, young people get more money for education, which only makes sense.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made several updates to his “Fiscal Sustainability Report 2018”. He noted that Ottawa is the one with the fiscal flexibility, and that the provinces have no more wiggle room. This is true to such an extent that, even if the government chose to incur massive debt and run up the debt, it would have the means of maintaining the net debt at its current level. Based on future projections, the Parliamentary Budget Officer expects that Ottawa will have completely reimbursed its debt, while the provinces will still be drowning in massive debts because funding needs in health and education are increasing, but Ottawa is contributing less and less. That is a big problem.

The motion we are debating here infringes on provincial jurisdiction. We are not opposed to the idea of funding dental care, but we believe that that decision is up to Quebec, which does not have the money to fund all general health care services. When it comes to pharmacare, Quebec has a system that works, even though it is far from perfect. Obviously, a dental program is also necessary, but we should not be discussing it here. Our role here is to decide to increase health care funding so that the provinces can move forward with their plans.

I would like to read out a brief passage on this subject. I will then ask the members a question.

This asymmetry vis-à-vis du Québec can be applied in real terms through opting out with compensation. The right to opt out applies where the federal government, on its own or with the agreement of the provinces, intervenes in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction (in particular health and social services, education, family policy, housing, municipal infrastructure, etc.). In such case, no conditions or standards should be applied to Québec without its consent, obtained after consultation and negotiation. The principle of opting out is very important, as it makes it possible to reconcile the exercise of federal spending power for provinces that want it with respect for Québec's constitutional jurisdiction.

As members may have guessed, I was reading a passage from the Sherbrooke declaration adopted in 2005 by the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party of Canada. It is odd that after adopting those principles, the NDP is now moving a motion in Parliament that encroaches directly on provincial jurisdiction and does not mention that Quebec should automatically be allowed to opt out with full compensation if the federal government implements this measure.

Sadly, our party is no stranger to this treatment. If former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe were here today, he could remind us how many times motions like these, ones that encroached on areas of provincial jurisdiction, have been moved.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois is a social democratic party. We believe in quality public services, but the role of the House is to provide health funding. It is up to Quebec to decide how to invest that money, whether in emergency care, dental care or pharmacare. It is not up to the House to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is why we will be voting against today's motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I must, however, remind him that there are lineups across Quebec. Quebeckers are waiting for dental care.

If I understand correctly, the Bloc is saying that this issue is not fixed and that criticism of underfunded health care is warranted. However, the Bloc is choosing to penalize Quebeckers by refusing to support a motion that would provide dental care. The federal government would give this money directly to Quebec, which could decide what to do with it. As the member for Burnaby South pointed out earlier, this measure would include the right to opt out with full compensation, which goes without saying.

I do not understand why we are going in circles. There is a dental care crisis right now. The money is there at the federal level. If this motion is adopted and if the Government of Quebec agrees, Quebeckers will have access to that money and to dental care services. As I mentioned in my speech, people are lining up at the Université de Montréal to access free care because they have no other option.

Does the Bloc understand how important it is to give the Government of Quebec this option?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, what the Bloc understands is that this is yet another intrusion into provincial jurisdictions. If the member wanted to respect the Sherbrooke declaration, the motion should have stipulated that Quebec and the provinces would have the right to opt out with full compensation. Otherwise, what is the point of the declaration? Was it meant simply to grab votes in Quebec? Then, when it comes time to apply it, it is soon forgotten. Unfortunately, that seems to happen all too often.

Quebec's social and public services are more abundant and of higher quality than those found in the rest of Canada. We in the Bloc Québécois trust the National Assembly of Quebec to implement progressive policies that will ensure high-quality services for Quebeckers.

Any time Ottawa comes forward with a social service or progressive measure, Quebec has usually adopted it at least a generation earlier. That is the problem.

Health is underfunded, and the House of Commons is to blame. The House must first address health care funding.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I will defer to the member's request to not debate dental care here, and I will talk about something else that was brought up during the speech.

The last Conservative speaker said he was, shockingly, against the tax cut. Conservatives are normally for tax cuts, but he was against the tax cut. Does the member agree with that?

The motion in question would leave the tax cut in place for everyone with under $90,000 of disposable income, but it would eliminate it for people with $90,000 to $210,000. Does the member agree with eliminating that part of the tax cut?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The member represents a magnificent area.

The Bloc Québécois does not support tax cuts for the wealthy. We are in favour of a progressive system.

In the last Parliament, the government cut taxes for the middle class. When we took a close look, it was clear that the people eligible for the maximum tax cut were those with annual incomes between $110,000 and $220,000. In my riding, there are not many people who earn that much. We would prefer to see measures that support those earning around $50,000 a year.

Here, we are discussing cutting taxes for those with incomes below $90,000. In my opinion, those earning more than $90,000 should contribute a proportionately higher amount of their income than a person who earns less than that.

However, the motion is not clear about how this will be implemented. Will those earning $90,000 be taxed incrementally more? Will the $90,000 represent a step increase? In that case it would be more profitable to earn $85,000 than $92,000 a year. Will the tax reduction kick in at $75,000?

We also need details about this.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt my Bloc colleague's speech, but I want to raise this as quickly as possible.

Earlier the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity misled the House by claiming that her government introduced the universal child care benefit. That is something that was introduced by the Harper government.

I put forward a unanimous consent motion to table the Universal Child Care Benefit Act of 2006 to show that the minister is incorrect in her representation to the House.

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

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I read the motion moved by my hon. colleague fromNew Westminster—Burnaby. I must confess to this honourable House that I was blown away by this motion.

For a moment, I felt like I was in Quebec’s National Assembly or a Canadian provincial legislature. It was so surreal that I asked my assistant to pinch me. I asked him if Québec Solidaire had just tabled a motion in the House of Commons. He replied that no, it was the NDP.

Under the circumstances, before I even go into what I think of how the motion is worded, I would like to remind the House that this is 2020. The fact that we are once again debating a motion that falls under provincial jurisdiction in Ottawa is incredibly sad. It shows a lack of respect for the legislators that should legitimately make those decisions based on their values and their resources. Perhaps you have heard the expression “a leopard cannot change its spots”. This is a perfect example of that concept.

In 2005, after spending 45 good years fighting for the centralization of legislative powers in Ottawa, the NDP adopted the famed Sherbrooke declaration, in which it claimed to recognize asymmetrical federalism and it intended to give Quebec the systematic right to opt out.

Today, five or six elections later, with one MP back home, they have written off Quebec and its legitimate right to legislate its own affairs.

The NDP and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby know perfectly well that health is not a federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, they are still trying to impose social programs that Quebec and the Canadian provinces have the authority to bring in if they want.

No one here is against apple pie. I love apple pie. No one here is against pandas. We all love pandas. However, imposing dental care coverage through, I assume, the Canada Health Act, is nothing short of overriding the Constitution that allows us to be here—a Constitution that Quebec has never signed, by the way.

A few seconds ago, I chose the verb “assume”. That was not a coincidence and that brings me to my second point. This motion is so vague it feels like we are heading into murky waters.

The motion talks about wanting to implement dental coverage for families whose income is less than $90,000. The motion also says that benefits would be made available to individuals who earn less than $90,000 a year. With all due respect, the motion's wording is so vague that it almost contradicts itself. It does not take much imagination. One example that I am very familiar with is my own experience from around 15 years ago.

I was 23 years old. I had just had my best year in the film industry. I had been working in the industry for four years. I earned more than $90,000 that year. I bought myself a triplex with my sister. Then, my wife, Mylène, gave birth to our son Émile Duceppe, our first child. My wife was in school that year. The following year, in 2004, I earned about $30,000 because I was freelancing. I was a contract worker.

Since my wife was still in school and I had a mortgage to pay and we had a young boy to raise, if I had had any kind of dental problem, my previous year's income would have been used and I would not have been entitled to the dental coverage proposed today.

I am sorry, I lost my train of thought. Someone I know is here and that stressed me a little.

[An hon. member]

Is it me?