Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax Changes

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to our motion with respect to dental care. It is amazing what I have seen over the years. There is always an excuse not to help children with health care and people who need some type of assistance.

At the end of the day, this is a matter of political will. We can listen to all the different excuses such as not enough money being there, but there is money for the submarines that do not work right. There is money for planes that have not been delivered, and with overrun costs.

I will give a classic example of something that just came to its anniversary. The money we borrowed for a new tax on Canadians. The HST was brought in and we gave money to the Provinces of British Columbia and Ontario to enter into the program. We had the economic analysis on the cost on the of borrowing over 10 years. Ontario received $4.6 billion and British Columbia received $1.6 billion to British Columbia. It is now over $7.1 billion in cost.

When we are talking about the dental care for Canadians, we are also talking about the savings we would have for so many people who do not have the necessary coverage. We are also talking about the improvement in our economy by having a healthier workforce. Those are not immeasurable in the economics being applied here today, but they are tangible at the end of the day for the Canadian economy.

There is no doubt that when looking at dental care, it is one of the most underestimated investments when it comes to health care. There are several factors that help people with their dental care. It is not even just about cleaning and an avoidance of pain. We also deal with other health problems, such as respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease, dementia, infections, diabetic complications, renal disease complications, premature birth and low birth weight. These are all related to poor dental care.

We can always find an excuse not to start something and the motion speaks to that. It is specifically about making a budgetary choice in this Parliament. It is very much isolated to the moment with respect to economics and its accountability for the public.

We are asking the the House to 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 per year.

Millions of Canadians will now be able to afford some type of basic dental coverage. When we did the work in the partnership and outreach for this motion, statistics indicated that 35.4% of Canadians reported that they had no dental insurance.

There are people in our neighbourhoods who are unable to get coverage. A significant portion of the population do not have any insurance whatsoever. What money they use on oral hygiene and health care is at the expense of rent, food or investment in education.

It is important to note that those people are also most likely to be under-employed, unemployed or work part-time. It is so hard for this chamber to wrap itself around the fact that we want a simple choice to start a significant program that would at least touch the worst of the worst in Canada. It is amazing we can always find a reason not to do it, but we can find a reason to buy a pipeline and buy submarines that do not work right. We can find all kinds of reasons for pet projects and corporations, including Mastercard and Loblaws. We always hear the explanation of why it is possible and why it has to be done.

However, when it comes to protecting kids, when it comes to providing a basic coverage for them and their families that are the worst off, there is always a reason not to do it.

This is what is disappointing. With all the problems we face right now in the country, one of the most civilized countries on the planet, we cannot help some of the people in our constituencies when it comes to oral hygiene and dental problems. Is it too big of a problem for us to fix? Is it that we cannot do it and we will have to leave it up to another Parliament? Maybe it will find the wisdom. Can we not find the small amount of money in the budget to reallocate toward this proposal?

I talked about the HST and the continued legacy of debt and deficit. We continue to finance that deficit to bring a tax on ourselves. What I have not said is that we are still not in a surplus. We are still paying interest on that debt. There was no problem finding the money for that.

However, to pay for this, there is a problem. I do not understand it. I think most Canadians are on board with this. I think most Canadians understand the vulnerabilities. When we look at the numbers, it also affects women. For a government that says it is dealing with some of the systemic problems in relation to women and society, again, this is another missed opportunity. The statistics show that 24.1% of women are more likely than men, 20%, to report costs as a barrier. People are saying they are not taking care of themselves because of that. It is an issue of finance. Canadians aged 18 to 34, 28%, were the age group most likely to report costs as a barrier for dental care.

We are at a time when we have burdened our youth with expenses from post-secondary education that are historic. We are passing on a legacy of debt to them, as well as a legacy of other issues for them to deal with. They also have some of the highest rates of unemployment and under-employment. There is also the fact that many of the jobs they enter into do not have benefit packages.

We are saying that we give up, that we cannot do it, that it is too complicated for us and that we cannot figure it out. There is no consensus here. Nobody else can offer an amendment? There could have been an amendment to this to make it work. That is fine. We are open to that. An amendment could have happened here. However, the government is saying no, that it cannot do that, that it is too complicated and too hard. The government just cannot be bothered and that is sad.

Those young people are our future. One would think we would have the common sense to actually be preventative. One of the reasons we talk about this in a prevention model is that there is also another $155 million approximately for people to go to hospital emergency rooms to have their teeth taken take care of. However, we do not know the true costs because people do not even do it.

I do not know a Canadian out there right now who would not like to have an emergency room that is not cluttered with mental health issues and other types of unnecessary appointments. People have to go to emergency rooms because they are desperate and have nowhere else to go. I do not know anyone out there who would not agree that these cases do not need to be there when there are other emergencies.

That would be one of the better things that could streamline our system. How much money are we losing and tying up because people cannot get the proper basic coverage for their dental care?

For many mental health issues, we do not provide actual supports out there. People end up going to the hospital because they have no other options or they go to a clinic, if they are really desperate. We pay for that. That does not make any sense.

Again, I would argue the economic value of this for employers who are looking to invest in Canada. This is significant because it takes this off their books and puts it toward a workforce that is healthy, stronger, more competitive and productive. That is good for all Canadians, because those people then pay taxes.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, dental care is extremely important to people on low incomes. We know that with proper dental care, a filling that costs $80 could save thousands and thousands of dollars in other health issues, like heart disease. A filling that is not done properly can cause blood poisoning and that person may end up needing much greater interventions by the health care system.

We support this motion. Has the member done the research and looked at how much money will be saved in the health care system by providing basic dental care to people on low incomes? How much money are we going to save by doing this and helping people?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, about $155 million will be saved annually just from emergency room visits alone. That does not take into account the fact that the people going to emergency rooms at all hours of the day are clogging up the system for other people affected by other issues. That is a drain on our economy and our productivity as a society.

If people are going to emergency rooms out of desperation at 10 o'clock at night because they have to be at work the next day, then there is less flow in our economy because productivity goes down for a lot of different reasons related to that. With prevention, an appointment is scheduled and people never end up in that situation and do not become a burden on the emergency health care system.

That is one perfect example of how this would work and how the investment would pay off. It should be measured as part of the formula to do this. We should at least provide some political will.

Everybody knows that hospital wait times are very difficult, very stressful and very painful. Canadians should be asking their MPs why we are sending those with dental problems to the hospital, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is helping them to prevent those problems to begin with.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to discuss child care or health care, but I would like to read to my colleague a recent unanimous resolution of the Quebec National Assembly. It dates back to June 2019 and states the following:

That it [the Quebec National Assembly] reaffirm the Government of Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over health care;

I really think that my NDP colleague knows that health is a provincial jurisdiction, but, through his motion, he is trying to impose a certain way of doing things on Quebec, to make Quebec spend money on this particular area. It is up to Quebec and the provinces to decide what they will do with their money.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Bloc has twisted itself around in this case, out of an ideology, to be against young people, families and children.

It is important to read the motion. The motion asks the government to redirect some of the highest income in its budget to a program. The motion does not even say how that could be done.

The Bloc's position on this is interesting, but I am a bit disappointed in Bloc members. I know they are strong advocates with respect to many other issues. In reality, the motion does not say how this could be done. The resources could be directed to Quebec so it can go about providing its dental program and to Ontario and other places. It does not specifically say that in the motion.

It is an unfortunate missed opportunity for the Bloc to support progressive policy, because it would open up an income stream for Quebec to better prepare its citizens for this type of problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to put a question to my hon. colleague, who indicated that the provinces would be interested in participating in this type of program. I know that my province of Quebec staunchly defends itself from any federal interference in the health system.

Does my colleague know if other provinces are prepared to sign on to this type of bill?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is a motion; it is not legislation. It is important to distinguish between the two. The motion provides the vehicle and flexibility to do that. It would not trample on provincial rights. It provides a direct policy for the government to change where the funding comes from with regard to high-income earners and allows for a system to be put in place. From there, it is up to the government to craft the way it wants to do it, which is similar to how we deliver health care to all the provinces. The motion does not specifically assign this.

To use the jurisdictional barrier issue to vote the motion down is really unfortunate and sad. It really shows us that there is always an excuse to go against the poor, children and young people when there is no political will. There would be no jurisdictional trampling at all through this process.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here while you are presiding over this meeting. I want to thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak today about the government's plans in this area.

With respect to the suggestion on how savings from changes to the tax system could be used, I am pleased to talk about the government's commitment to strengthen health care for Canadians.

The mandate letter of the Minister of Health includes a commitment to support Parliament in studying the issue of dental care so that we can better understand what the government's role may be in helping to improve access to dental care in Canada. This debate provides an opportunity for members of Parliament to share their views on this issue.

Across the country, many Canadians have coverage for dental care through private employee health benefit plans, while many are supported by government programs. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, $15.5 billion was spent on dental services in Canada in 2017. Of this, 54% was covered through private insurance plans, 40% was paid out of pocket and 6% was publicly funded by a variety of federal, provincial and territorial government programs.

We know that oral health is an integral element of overall health. By the time they are adults, 96% of Canadians have been impacted by dental decay. It is largely preventable and disproportionately and more severely impacts our most vulnerable populations, such as those living with a disability, those from low-income households, those in marginalized communities and seniors.

Twenty per cent of Canadians have moderate to severe gum disease. This number is amplified in older adults and those with lower incomes. Not only can this cause tooth loss and related problems with eating, speaking and social interactions, it has been shown to complicate a number of medical conditions. Further, the Canadian Cancer Society advises that in overall cancer incidents in Canada, oral cancer ranks ninth in men and 13th in women, and the trend line is increasing. About 5,300 Canadians will be diagnosed with oral cancer annually, and nearly 1,500 will die of it.

That is why the government welcomed the Standing Committee on Health's recent decision to study the issue of dental care in Canada and stands ready to support the committee in its work.

At a national level in Canada, good data on unmet dental care needs does not exist. We know that three-quarters of Canadians visit a dentist at least once a year, higher than the OECD average, and that wait times for dental care are among the shortest in the world. Approximately two-thirds of Canadians report no dental needs. At the same time, we know that approximately one-third of Canadians are uninsured and that approximately six million Canadians have reported avoiding a visit to the dentist because of cost.

To address data gaps, the Canadian government has partnered with Statistics Canada to design an oral health surveillance component for an upcoming cycle of a Canadian health measure survey, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and in collaboration with leading researchers from all 10 of Canada's university faculties of dentistry and experts from the United States and the United Kingdom. This work will provide key information for those developing oral health programs and policies for Canadians.

In addition to improving data on dental care, the federal government provides dental care services for certain groups of people through the non-insured health benefits program delivered by Indigenous Services Canada. The government provides dental coverage for recognized first nations and Inuit. In addition, the children's oral health initiative provides dental coverage for many first nations children and their parents.

Through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the interim federal health program provides coverage for emergency dental care services for some refugee claimants and protected persons. In addition, the federal government provides members of the Canadian Armed Forces, some veterans and inmates of federal penitentiaries with dental coverage.

Alongside these federal programs, all provinces and territories fund and manage their own dental care services, which cover medically necessary in-hospital dental services for all residents. Many provincial and territorial programs also cover some dental services for certain groups of people, such as children in low-income households, people receiving social assistance benefits, people with certain disabilities and senior citizens. However, specific eligibility requirements, types of services included and the financial coverage levels depend on the province or the territory.

Provincial and territorial health care programs, including those with dental coverage, are supported by federal funding through the Canada health transfer, or the CHT. The CHT is providing $40.4 billion to the provinces and territories in 2019-20. This will continue to increase each year in line with the growth rate of the economy, with a minimum increase of at least 3% per year. Over the next five years, CHT funding to provinces and territories is expected to exceed $200 billion.

In addition to direct federal spending on dental services and fiscal transfers to the provinces and territories, assistance for dental care is already provided through the federal tax system. About two-thirds of Canadians receive dental coverage from their employee health insurance benefits. The federal government supports these Canadians by not including the value of these insurance plans in the taxable income of employees.

Forty per cent of dental care costs are paid through out-of-pocket payments by Canadians. The federal government provides assistance with these costs through an income tax credit called the medical expenses tax credit. This is a non-refundable tax credit for eligible medical expenses that can be claimed by taxpayers if the expenses exceed 3% of an individual's net income or $2,352, whichever is less, in the 2019 tax year. An additional refundable medical expense supplement is available for working individuals with low incomes and high medical expenses.

In addition to support for dental care, the federal government improves the oral health of Canadians at the national level through health promotion, disease prevention and professional and technical guidance. In the area of health promotion, and in consultation with the national oral health professional community, last year the government incorporated oral health considerations into the Canada food guide and into its ongoing information campaigns.

In terms of prevention, the government has worked with the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Alberta to produce user-friendly online information on proper teeth cleaning for infants, children, adults, seniors and pregnant women, as well as for caregivers supporting older adults living with dementia at home. The government has also partnered with the University of Manitoba and collaborated with many key national health professional organizations to produce the Canadian caries risk assessment tool, which will now enable Canadian health practitioners to confidently assess their preschool patients and take the steps necessary to prevent early childhood caries and guide those patients into the appropriate care approaches.

The government has also worked with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to produce comprehensive knowledge products for community decision-makers on water fluoridation. Community water fluoridation remains a safe, cost-effective and equitable public health practice to prevent tooth decay.

In the areas of professional and technical guidance, the government collaborated with leading Canadian researchers in the areas of the oral health effects of cannabis and vaping to develop knowledge products for Canadian oral health practitioners to consider as they care for their patients who may be using these substances. The government has also partnered with McGill University to create and launch the Canadian Dental Connection website for rural and remote communities seeking oral health practitioners, and provide online training modules for these practitioners on cultural competency and trauma-informed care.

To support the improvement of the oral health of Canadians and fulfill our international responsibilities, the government works with partners and stakeholders nationally and globally, including organizations in the professional, regulatory and educational domains, such as the Canadian Dental Association and the Canadian Dental Regulatory Authorities Federation. We have also collaborated with international health and dental organizations, such as the World Health Organization, and oral health authorities around the world.

These initiatives demonstrate that our government is playing a constructive role in supporting access to dental care for Canadians. We look forward to participating in the study of dental care to be conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, of which I am proud to say I am member.

However, we know that dental care is only one aspect of the health care system for Canadians. The government has a strong interest in improving the health care system so that it can meet the needs of Canadians now and into the future. With an aging population, increasing rates of chronic disease and cost pressures tied to new drugs and technologies, our system must adapt if it is to deliver better care and better outcomes at a cost that is affordable.

Our government is committed to strengthening health care, including improving access to primary care, mental health services, home and palliative care, and implementing national universal pharmacare for Canadians. These commitments build on our actions over the last several years to improve access to mental health services, home and palliative care, and prescription drugs.

Our joint work with provinces and territories has been particularly successful and provides a good model for future joint work on health care. Federal, provincial and territorial governments reached an agreement on a common statement of principles for shared health priorities in 2017, which outlines key priorities for federal investments in mental health and addictions, as well as home and community care.

The common statement reaffirms our shared commitment to report on results to Canadians through common indicators; to improve the affordability, accessibility and appropriate use of prescription drugs; to support health innovation; and to engage with regional and national indigenous leaders on their priorities for improving the health outcomes of indigenous peoples. Under this agreement, federal investments of $11 billion over 10 years are being used by provinces and territories to address specific needs in our health care system, such as increasing the availability of home and palliative care and helping youth access needed mental health services.

We will continue to build on this progress as we work to implement the commitments outlined in the mandate letter of the Minister of Health, including improving access to primary care, setting national standards for access to mental health services, and continuing to make home and palliative care more available across the country. In this respect, the government looks forward to learning more about the challenges faced by Canadians in accessing dental care and will actively participate in the study of this important issue by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned his commitment to palliative care. I wonder if he could speak to the fact that provincial health minister Adrian Dix has just pulled funding for 10 hospice beds in Delta because the hospice is unwilling to provide MAID.

As we know, MAID and palliative care are completely opposite treatments. I wonder if the member could fill me in on his thoughts on the commitment to palliative care.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of Minister Dix. However, another topic that we have talked about studying on the health committee, and I believe the member is also on the committee, is palliative care. These are things we are going to talk about in the future.

This is something that is extremely important to Canadians, and it is something that we as members of the health committee will be continuously looking at to see how we can improve palliative care for all Canadians.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his very thoughtful comments today and also for his tremendous work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

My colleague comes from Atlantic Canada. When knocking on doors last summer, one of the number one items I heard at the door, and I am assuming he did as well, was access to health care services in Atlantic Canada and how we can improve health care services within our region and all across the country.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the importance of the investment of $11 billion that we have made when it comes to home care and mental health services, and how that has really benefited Canadians across the country.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member as well for her incredible contribution as former minister of health and the work that she did on behalf of all Canadians.

The member is absolutely correct. The number one thing we heard at the doors in Atlantic Canada was for better health care. In addition to the Canada child benefit, which has done incredible things for our country, one of the things I am most proud of is the $11 billion, in addition to the health care accord, that we have put in separate streams to go toward mental health care and home care. This investment allows the federal government to have a say in how that money is spent, and it comes with expectations on behalf of the provinces and territories to ensure those funds are spent in the proper way.

It is the first time that I am aware of that we have had federal health care transfer money go toward dedicated streams within health care funding. It is something that I found was met with lots of resistance when it was first negotiated with the provinces and territories. However, the provinces and territories did fall in line and did accept those funds. I think they probably look at those funds now and say that this was money well spent and that they will work with the federal government to show how they have invested those funds in their communities.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my Liberal colleague's thoughts on the Sherbrooke declaration.

In 2005, the late Jack Layton, former parliamentarian and leader of the NDP at the time, said that in a Canada that works, Quebec would have the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation.

In our opinion, the NPD's proposal proves that the party is distancing itself from its late leader, Jack Layton. This comes to us as a surprise and a disappointment.

I would like to know my colleague opposite's thoughts on the following question: Should a proposal like the one currently on the table not include a right for Quebec to fully opt out with full compensation and no strings attached?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The motion we are discussing today is on dental care for Canadians. What we have said from the start, and what we have seen in the mandate letter of the minister, is that we are willing to look at these things. We are willing to do whatever is necessary and whatever is possible to consider for the better health of all Canadians.

We have said from the start that we would take suggestions from other parties and from all parliamentarians in this House on how we can move forward for the better health of all Canadians. This is something that we take very seriously.

Again, going back to the health committee, all the members discussed the possible studies they would be able to do, and one of the ones that was mentioned first was dental care. The Minister of Health had this in her mandate letter as something that we have to look at within the terms of her mandate. It is something we are very proud to work on, and we will collaborate with all members in this House to ensure that we are working toward better health for all 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]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary for his thoughts on how important it is, when we are talking about interprovincial jurisdiction and the potential for pharmacare or even for dental plans in the future, that the federal government work collaboratively with the provinces and respect the important role the provinces and other stakeholders have to play.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot get where we need to go for Canadians if we do not collaborate and partner with all provinces and territories. We will not get national universal pharmacare if we are not able to work with the provinces and territories.

We cannot trample on jurisdiction. The provinces and territories need us as partners and we need them as partners. We need them to see how important this project could be and how important national pharmacare could be. Whether it includes dental or it does not, a national universal pharmacare program requires partnership and collaboration with every province and every territory in this great country.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to listen to my colleague talk about federal-provincial collaboration on health matters. I do not know why we are debating this topic today, since health is a provincial jurisdiction. This motion is rather odd.

That said, my colleague talks a lot about federal health spending. We do want to work together, even though this is a provincial jurisdiction, but federal legislation stipulates that the government pays 50% of provincial health care costs. Right now, Quebec is getting just 22% and we are asking for a 6% increase. We are far from that 50%.

Is my colleague prepared to look at increasing health transfers to Quebec so that we can perhaps participate in a Canada-wide pharmacare program?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in 2019 over $40 billion went toward health transfers. Almost $200 billion will go toward it over the next several years, and it is going to go up by 3% every year. We are making those commitments to the provinces.

Health care is provincial, but the federal government does have a role. I went over several of the things that we do and several of the things that past federal governments have done toward health care. There is a big role for the federal government.

The fact that I have mentioned a collaborative partnership has been commented on several times. We absolutely need to be a partner at the table and we need to collaborate with provinces and territories, recognizing that health care is indeed the jurisdiction of the provinces.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite is talking about the need to collaborate, especially on health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction, as we have been repeating since the beginning of this discussion. Quebec has a very effective health care system that covers dental care, in large part, for children 10 and under. It certainly does not need to be reviewed, at least not in its current form.

My colleague is talking about collaboration, participation and partnership with the provinces. However, a partnership involves mutual respect. Does my colleague agree with including the right to opt out with full compensation, as Quebec is demanding and as is set out in the 2005 Sherbrooke declaration?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on the great work that Quebec does for health care. I look forward to perhaps using this as a model on dental care that we can study at the health committee. Maybe we can learn from Quebec.

Quebec has done many things to lead the country in the past. I look forward to the upcoming dental study and looking at the models that work in Canada and finding ways to make them work in other provinces and territories as well.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be here to speak to this important issue, but would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Today we are here to talk about something incredibly important, and that is dental care. We know that, across Canada, many Canadians are not able to afford basic dental care. I want to read into the record so that the constituents of North Island—Powell River know what we are talking about. The motion that the NDP has presented today simply says:

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 per year.

In my riding this is a significant challenge. During the election I was very surprised by how many doors I knocked on where people told me very clearly that affordable dental care was one of the best parts of the NDP platform to help people.

In my riding there are challenges on this issue. I want to give a specific shout-out to Compass Dental in Campbell River. One day a year, usually on a Saturday or a weekend day, dentists from that office, from Shoreline Orthodontics and Pier Street Dental come together and provide free dental care to members of the community.

There may be other dentists added to this list. When I went there a couple of years ago, the reception staff were absolutely amazing. They told me when they arrived early in the morning there was a huge lineup of people outside the door hoping to get an opportunity. Those dentists work hard every moment of that day to provide the dental care that people so desperately need.

I am so grateful for that dedication and that commitment in the riding, but I also face the reality that many people are desperately in need of dental care and have no way of being able to afford it. I cannot imagine how hard it is for dentists to have to turn people away, but that is what is happening.

I remember talking with a mother who talked about the reality that, at the end of the year, she pays for her children to get their dental care, but she simply cannot afford her own dental care. All parents would sacrifice for their children, but it is not right that the costs are such a barrier.

I also think of one constituent who is 56 years old and has had six teeth pulled in the last 10 years. She is down now to one chewing tooth. I cannot imagine that. Looking into the future, she knows that she needs implants or dentures, but she does not know how she is going to afford them. Her plan is to blend her food.

How is it that, in a country as rich as this, we are seeing the government give significant amounts of money to Mastercard and Loblaws, profitable businesses that are doing quite well for themselves, rather than to people who want to have their teeth taken care of? It is a simple, basic need. As rich as we are in Canada, we should do better.

That is why we are here today. In December, our finance and health spokesperson for the NDP wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance saying this is a real opportunity to collaborate and work together. We asked the Liberals to cap the middle-class tax cut they are proposing for people earning over $90,000 and use that money as a down payment to cover uninsured people making less than $90,000 a year, which is about four million people.

As I am having this discussion about the need of individuals in our country for the most basic dental care it brings to mind the truth of this place, which is that financial choices are political choices.

Who are we going to support in this country? Are we going to support people who are making a significant profit at the end of the year?

I remember when the government gave significant dollars to Loblaws in the last Parliament to help it with more energy-efficient refrigerators. I will never forget one of the local business owners in my riding emailing my office and asking where his money was for his refrigerator. A small amount of money would make such a significant difference in the life and prosperity of his business, and he wanted to know where he could get that kind of support.

I represent a rural and remote community, so there are other challenges on top of the challenges faced by people who have lower incomes or very expensive dental care. People could be making decent wages and keeping everything pretty sustainable, but if they need to have a very expensive dental procedure done sometimes they simply cannot do that. When we look at the challenges of just moving around my riding already, this just adds another layer.

When we look at these issues, we have to say to the government that when it makes choices about how to spend money, it is also making a political decision about who it values in this country. I hope all government members will support this motion, because what it really speaks to is valuing the most vulnerable people in our country and providing them with support.

There are so many stories, and I heard them when I was knocking on thousands of doors. I heard stories of people who were embarrassed to apply for work because their teeth were not in good shape. I heard stories of people who needed basic dental care, and it was getting to the point where it was painful so they were going to the hospital to get a tooth removed rather than getting care when they needed it, which could provide huge health concerns for them later in life.

I am really aware of the fact that in the year 2000 in this country we honoured corporate contributions. We understood that corporations in Canada, big multinational, multi-million dollar corporations, were making a significant amount of money and doing it on the resources of this country and on the labour of the people who live in this country. The corporate tax at that point was 28%. Today that tax is down to 15%.

These huge corporations are making significant amounts of money. I want to be really clear: I am not talking about the corporations in my riding that are doing well and looking after their people. I am talking about big multinational corporations such as Mastercard and Loblaws that have significant revenues every year. There was a time when they paid that 28% tax. Basically, to me that was understanding that the resources belonged to Canadians in this country, that the labour came from people who lived in this country and that the corporate tax meant we would not have people suffering to such a high degree when other people were prospering.

Here we are today having this debate. We are asking the Liberal government to take this seriously. Like pharmacare in the last Parliament, and it is continuing in this Parliament as well, the government keeps pushing things down the road. It wants to do another study and not talk about the core issues here. When people are struggling to afford their medication they should be the priority, not big corporations. When people cannot afford the most basic dental care they should be the priority, not the rich and well-connected.

This is a choice, and I am really sad to see a lot of people who are speaking from the government side not seeing a pathway to get to this motion. I just want to be really clear to the constituents I represent that this is a motion in the House. There was another motion that was passed unanimously in the House a little over a year ago to make sure that if any money to be given to our veterans was left over at the end of a year, it would go into the next year to support them, because we know there are so many challenges and barriers. The government did not follow through on that motion. It made a choice to vote but not support it.

Here we are again with an important motion that says we value people who have less. We value them more than people who have a lot, and today we are going to make sure they get the dental care they so desperately need.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her questions. I always appreciate her comments.

I do not agree with one of the statements that she has made, indicating that our government has punted pharmacare down the road. If I look back over the past four years, our government has done extensive work to move this file forward. We have taken steps, including making changes to the pan-Canadian pharmaceutical review board. We have also joined provinces and territories to make sure that we can bulk-purchase medications together. Furthermore, in budget 2019, we invested $35 million for the creation of the Canadian drug agency. Work is under way.

I have a specific question for my colleague. Does she agree that putting together a national pharmacare program, and also a dental care program, is going to require the collaboration of the provinces and territories? If we want to move forward with this, we absolutely have to work with all levels of government. I would like to hear the member's comments about that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member. I deeply appreciate the time that we have together on PROC, and have a deep respect for the work that she provides in that space. I have a great respect for her.

However, I just have to say that our perceptions will not align on this issue. I think the Hoskins report was very clear. The step forward around pharmacare was a single-payer universal system. Right now, we know that the next steps have not been implemented.

It goes back to the core issue of continuing to hear a lot of words that sound really good, but we need action. I say that as a person who represents people who have come to me. Seniors have come to me and have said they cannot afford their medication and are making choices every day between eating enough or taking their medication.

One woman in particular, who had a severe disability and was on a disability pension, not making a lot, worked hard and saved a little money to buy a van. She bought a van to live in, because she could not afford her medication.

These are real choices. We are here for Canadians. We are not here for rhetoric.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a specific question around rural and remote communities that might face additional challenges with people who cannot plan for appropriate dental care and who then run into emergencies. How difficult it is for them to deal with that when they may not have a clinic or an emergency room available to them?

I spoke earlier in this chamber about the waste of $155 million for people having to go to emergency rooms for emergency dental care, and how it was completely wasteful. However, when we look at rural and remote communities, there are probably additional challenges for people to even get to those locations.

I would like to hear the member's comments about that. If we had a planned, scheduled activity of dental care, even a basic one, people would more appropriately be able to stay in their community, leading to stable employment and to their being stronger contributors to the economy, as opposed to dealing with emergency situations.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important question.

I have to say, as a member of Parliament who represents more rural and remote communities, one of the biggest challenges is making sure that, when we look at our legislation and look at our actions, we are actually thinking of the realities on the ground.

In my riding, which is basically half of Vancouver Island and a large part of the mainland as well, there are communities like Kingcome right now that are under evacuation because the water is not clean. It is an indigenous community. They have had to be emergency evacuated. The reality for them is to buy a couple of boats or take a helicopter to get out of that community. If someone there needs emergency dental care, the barriers are profound.

I think about some of the communities that are accessible only by boat. It can take a long ferry ride to get to the services people need. These are the challenges.

When I look at motions like this, it is about making sure that people in our country who have the least have the most access, and that it is easy and affordable for them. There are other challenges that they face in our country. Across the whole country there are a lot of rural and remote communities. We need to make it more accessible for them.

We need to look at every decision we make in this place from that lens, because it is often those communities that have built our economy.