Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax Changes

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

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

I am proud to be part of a government that in 2015 presented a clear proposal to help a segment of voters who had just experienced 10 years of vulnerability as a result of the Conservative cuts.

I have a brother who is severely handicapped. For 10 years he did not receive any help from the government with home care or health care. For 10 years he suffered from the Conservative government's health care cuts.

In 2015, we gave Canadians the choice to invest more in health care and home care, support seniors and vulnerable people and introduce a benefit to lift Canadian children out of poverty. We are an ambitious, progressive government that believes in the possibility of getting money from people who have more of it and giving it to those less fortunate.

[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, could my colleague provide her thoughts in terms of the Standing Committee on Health? It did an outstanding job in regard to the whole issue of pharmacare and has laid the tracks for the government to look at ways in which we could move toward a universal pharmacare program. From what we understand, the health committee is now going to be looking at the dental plan. Does she see it as a good thing, at least as a starting point, from the House of Commons' perspective?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, it should be noted that in her mandate letter, the Minister of Health was asked to study the issue of dental care. I think that the Standing Committee on Health will also study the issue. Our government has certainly—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to have interrupted the answer that was coming, but I think it is important that we always make sure that no member misleads the House. It is customary to give members a chance to withdraw and clarify.

The parliamentary secretary, in answer to a question, claimed it was the Liberals who created the universal child care benefit. I have a document in my hand, and if necessary, I would ask unanimous consent to table this document, which clearly shows that the Universal Child Care Benefit Act was enacted in 2006 by the former Conservative government and not the Liberal government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

As the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge did pose a question at the end of his comments in respect to unanimous consent to table a document, does the member have the consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I expected that.

Concerning the point of order the member raised, this could be construed as debate. There will be opportunities for hon. members to bring those points into debate at a later time this afternoon, as the question is before the House.

The time for questions and comments is now completed.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great intervention that we heard from the Conservatives. I am really happy to pick up on it. Let us chat a little on that topic.

It dovetails really nicely into an article that the Canadian Press put out today. It talks about Canada, according to Statistics Canada, having the lowest rate of poverty in Canadian history.

I have news for the member across the way: That has very little to do with the former Conservative universal child care benefit and a lot more to do with the Canada child benefit that was introduced by this government. As a matter of fact, members do not even have to take my word for it; we can listen to what all of the professionals are saying. Let us look at what Statistics Canada is talking about as it relates to how far we have come.

With regard to this specific motion, I actually do not have a big problem with the various components that are in the motion. What I have an issue with is the way in which it was presented.

Do I look toward a day when we can have a meaningful discussion about dental care? I absolutely do. I always think that it was one of the natural next steps in health care, back when it was introduced back in the 1960s. It was in a minority Parliament situation, I will say, when we had the opportunity to discuss and bring forward that very important piece of legislation. Now we are talking about pharmacare, which was, in my opinion, the next natural step, although unfortunately, it took as long as it did.

I do want to have a discussion and I am very happy to see that it is within the mandate of the minister to start having that discussion. Indeed, I am sure parliamentarians will, at the appropriate committee, want to talk about dental care and where that falls into this.

However, let us get back to the topic at hand and where this motion is really going. This motion is attempting to zero in on doing as much as we possibly can, in particular for those who are struggling to make it. I would argue that through a number of the pieces of legislation that the government has introduced over the last four and a half years, we have seen significant strides in terms of lifting people out of poverty and in terms of seeing the lowest recorded levels of unemployment in Canadian history. We are talking about the economy growing at a pace that leads among the G7 countries.

I heard a very interesting discussion between a Conservative member and an NDP member prior to question period, in which the Conservatives seemed to be asking why we are only talking about the middle class and why it is just the middle class.

[An hon. member]

You do not even know what the middle class is.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Look at this. Through their heckling, they are asking the same question again.

I am surprised that Conservatives do not understand the economic principle of supporting those who drive the economy forward. They are basically asking what is in it for the 1% and saying there is nothing in it for the 1%. Despite the fact that they tout themselves as the economic saviours of Canada, they do not realize that when a nation has a strong middle class, when we help people who are struggling to get out of those circumstances, we will see our economy grow, and who is going to benefit the most from a fast-growing economy? It is the 1%.

[An hon. member]

Do we have one?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Do we have one? I am happy to answer questions now if the member would like. Do we have one? We have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Do we have a fast-growing economy? This economy is among the best that we have seen. Notwithstanding the heckling that is coming from the other side of the House, I would beg to differ with my colleague who made that comment.

I will say that this is why something like amending the basic allowance for personal income before taxes is so key. It is because this takes it another step forward.

This is to help those who are struggling to make it. It lets us give them a break.

The numbers that we are talking about here would put $3 billion back into the pockets of Canadians in 2020 and up to $6 billion by 2023, which will affect 1.1 million more Canadians who would pay zero in federal income tax. What we are doing is putting money back into the pockets of Canadians. Some people who need it the most would be getting an additional $300 per year. Families would be saving, through the reduction in taxes, an additional $600 a year.

What are those people who are getting an extra $300 a year going to do? This is a rhetorical question to my colleague from British Columbia, but they are not going to put it in a tax-free savings account. They are not going to be putting it into an investment that does not help the economy work. They are going to be putting it right back into the economy by spending that money.

Who does better when people are spending money in the economy? The government does better. Guess what the government can do when they do better? They can start bringing in more policy like this to give more breaks, and that is what we are seeing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I really feel as though I am making progress here, because a Conservative member across the way is starting to get it. I really feel that this has been an effective discourse despite the fact that it has involved some heckling, some of it what we might consider to be unparliamentary. I am really happy to see this.

However, going back to the motion, what we know is that when we put the necessary tools in place to help grow our economy, to help people who are struggling, to help the middle class in particular, we are going to see meaningful changes to our economy that are going to be for the betterment of all Canadians.

When we talk about dental care and where the NDP is trying to go with this opposition motion, I am fully supportive of the idea of looking into dental care and figuring out, as we have been with pharmacare, what the advantages would be in going toward a system like this. I applaud the NDP for always being the champions of issues like this.

I am willing to be quite frank here. It was the NDP, the former CCF, and Tommy Douglas who led the charge on health care. We would not have the amazing health care system we have in this country right now had it not been for that member, and I stand by that.

This is not a partisan thing; it is the reality of the situation. I applaud the NDP for always pushing forward on this agenda. What I have an issue with in this particular motion is the way that the motion is construed to try to tie these two together. In all honesty, I think it does a disservice to the work that needs to be done to properly examine where we need to go with dental care and the impacts that some of these policies genuinely have on Canadians.

I will leave it at that. I look forward to answering any questions. I am happy to engage on a personal level with some of the Conservative members if they would like to learn a little more from me. I am always willing to share my wisdom.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, because the Liberals are talking about how great the economy is for many people in our country, while of course the Conservatives are arguing about how much better they are at managing the economy. What we do know is that we are here for the one in five Canadians who cannot get a dental plan. The system is not working for them, either when the Conservatives are in government or when the Liberals are in government.

We keep hearing the Liberals promising their middle-class tax break. In the last Parliament, they brought forward a middle-class tax break whereby if someone earned $45,000 a year or less, the person got nothing, but if someone earned over $100,000, that person got up to $700. This time, if someone earns $143,000, that person will get the maximum.

All we are asking for is capping the middle-class tax break at $90,000 and thereby ensuring that Canadians who do not have a dental care plan do get a plan.

I got a note today from Veronica Morgan in Port Alberni. She is from Huu-Ay-Aht. She wrote, “My wonder is if there is anything gearing towards supporting those who can't afford dental support, for those who aren't on income assistance but don't have a dental care plan.”

Bruce Smith wrote, “Yes, dental and optical should be part of our health care for sure.”

I am urging the member to support this motion like Tommy Douglas did on health care. Let us move forward and make sure that every Canadian has dental care.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion. When I was a municipal politician, we used to take property tax dollars and put them into funds to help people get their teeth fixed who could not afford to do it because they did not have coverage. I understand the pressures. Quite frankly, it is not a thing that property taxes should be paying for.

This is something that should be done at the provincial and federal level, by putting the necessary tools in place with the necessary legislation and support for all Canadians. I am more than willing to have this discussion. My only reservation is the manner in which this is presented. It seems to bring two separate issues and somehow link them together.

Unfortunately, I do not support this, but I do very much support pushing forward and doing that in partnership with the NDP to make sure that we have good, meaningful discussion and dialogue around dental care.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech, he picked up at the end of the intervention I made regarding the previous Conservative government as the government that brought in the universal child care benefit. I even looked up a headline from the CBC at the time that said, Liberal apologizes for saying that people will take their child care money and spend it on beer and popcorn. We know that the government does not trust Canadians with their own money and they want to have programs for Canadians, rather than what members freely use themselves.

I want to point out that the member took credit for the lowest level of poverty in Canadian history. In the last government the definition of poverty was changed. The goalposts, so to speak, of the statistics were moved. Is the member aware of that and does he want to comment on how the government may have affected the definition of poverty?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about the universal child care benefit, let us talk about it. It was a benefit that was designed to give every single Canadian the same amount of money. It did not matter if one made $15,000 a year or half a million dollars a year; one got the same amount of money.

I understand that is Conservative policy and those are Conservative ideas. I get it. It is just a difference of opinion as to how to implement policy like this.

Our version of that is maybe the millionaires do not need that $1,500 a year and maybe we should be giving more to people on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Here is the kicker to it. What Conservatives do not understand about it is that they might get a short-term gain, because they can give $1,500 a year to some members of their base, but they are not doing anything in the long term for the economy.

When we invest in people, the middle class and those who are struggling to make it, we will see that money kick in as we are seeing now. It will grow the economy and it will support everybody in Canada.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and to share my time with the member for Windsor West.

Politics is about choices. Regardless of what side of the House members sit on, they come here in part because they feel they have good ideas about what choices the government ought to make that would be in the best interest of their communities. Of course, there can be real disagreements sometimes on the nature of those choices and which path to take in light of the choices we put to the House.

Today the NDP is trying to put a choice to the House that is about looking out for people in Canada who cannot access dental services. Having good oral health is important to one's health overall. We also know, because we heard stories during the campaign last fall, how important it is for people seeking employment and the kind of social stigma attached to not being able to take care of one's oral health.

A woman who lives in St. Michael's Villa in Transcona shared the impact that poor dental health had on her family, as some seniors feel like they cannot go out or socialize because they are embarrassed at the state of their teeth. We heard in caucus stories from across the country of people who would like to get a job but in some cases are ashamed to go to an interview. In other cases, they feel that they were not selected because of the stigma I referred to earlier.

There is often objection to embarking on this kind of project to do something concrete for people. The objection is not to having the government do things for people they cannot otherwise do themselves, but to having government be a vehicle for collective action to help people who on their own do not have a big voice. This is unlike some of the big corporations we see here that get to be the hot topic of question period because they have a lot of money and they have the ability to invest. Most regular Canadians do not get that kind of time and attention. The purpose of this motion today is to get that time and attention and to provide that kind of advocacy for regular Canadians who are struggling just to look after their teeth.

That is the choice that NDP members are bringing forward to the House today. Often the objection is that, although it is a nice thing to do and NDP members are nice people, we do not understand what it costs. We do not understand how it will get done and the government cannot afford to do that for everybody.

For the benefit of those who might be listening at home, I would like to read the motion into the record, which will not be the first time today I am sure. The way the motion reads is exactly to show that we can afford this, because it would be using money the government has already made a choice to do something with, which is to give a tax break that is going to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Canadians.

The motion 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, including dental coverage for uninsured families making less than $90,000 per year.

It is a down payment on getting to universal coverage with money that is already there and that the government has already told us that it does not need because it is prepared to put it back in people's pockets. Whose pockets will it go into? Overwhelmingly, the money for this cut tax would go back into the pockets of people who earn over $100,000 a year.

The largest benefit that an individual Canadian can get under this cut would be in the neighbourhood of $300 a year, which is not that much. The people for whom $300 a year is a lot are not going to be getting $300. Instead of giving $300 per year to people who are already making at least $113,000 a year, we can ensure that families with the least income in Canada are getting access to a service they do not have access to right now.

Earlier in the House, our leader made reference to the long lineups at free university dental clinics. I think Montreal was the example he used, but it is not unique to Montreal and it is happening across the country. People cannot get access to those services.

It is just not true that we cannot afford to do this. The people who say we cannot afford to invest in our people, we cannot afford to make sure that people have the services they need, together those two parties have been ruling this country for a long time, in fact for the entire history of our country, but particularly in the last 30 years. We have seen massive government deregulation. We have seen massive cuts to social spending by the federal government, starting in the nineties. We have taken that path of deregulation and cutting services and refusing to invest in people. That is the trajectory we have been on for 30 years now and it has not been working. Canadians more and more feel pressure to make ends meet at the end of the month. They feel like they are not getting the same level of service that they used to.

We heard questions in question period today about people calling the Canada Revenue Agency and not being able to reach anyone on the phone. We cannot go into an office to get help to apply for EI or to figure out how to file our taxes. The services that the federal government has been providing have been in steady decline, all in the name of increased prosperity that just has not come.

There is a lot of evidence that shows that when we invest in people and help them get the things they need in order to get back on their feet, like looking after their teeth so that they have the confidence they need to go to a job interview and get that job, or so that in retirement they do not isolate themselves in their apartments because they feel awkward about going out, worrying that people might be laughing at them, or that they will not be understood because their teeth are not what they used to be. It really is no laughing matter. People worry about that and it ends up seriously affecting their lives.

We have had the approach of cutting. We have had the approach of helping out big corporations, giving them massive corporate tax breaks in the hope they will invest back in the economy, which they did not do, and that the wealth would trickle down. That whole way of thinking has been debunked.

Instead of giving another tax break to people who are making over six figures, we should take that money and invest it in something that is going to do something for people who could use the help. They need a government that is willing to coordinate those many voices. They are far more numerous than the people earning the most, but those voices are not loud because they do not have the money to amplify them. They need a government that is willing to coordinate that activity so that for all of those people, who are the majority, they can start getting the things that they need.

That is what the NDP is committed to advocate for in this place. We make no apologies about it. We are going to continue to make proposals. We are not just here to criticize. There is certainly a lot to criticize and we will not hesitate to do that either. A part of real criticism, that is not just part of the cheap political point-scoring that too often goes on in this place, is to come up with real proposals and real alternatives about how we would do it differently. This is how we would do it differently, but it does not have to be just our idea. We would prefer that it not be just our idea, but that parties in this place get on board. The money is there. We can make it work and it is about time that we did.

That is what we are here today to do. That is what we are here today to say. I do not think we need to send it off to committee to study and study. Here is the deal. The Liberals promised pharmacare in 1997. We know what “to study it” means. It is kicking the can down the road so the job does not get done at the end of the day. Liberals said they liked the idea of a parliamentary committee study at one point, then they created their own commission for pharmacare. The fact is we are not missing the information, we are missing the political will. No amount of studying will stand in for political will.

The motion today does not make a change in the budget. It calls on the House to affirm that change. Surely with the resources of government, if we have the political will, we can get this done and get it done quickly. That is what we are calling on the House to do.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a westerner in a social gospel kind of movement. He and his father are among those rare NDPers that sometimes Conservatives can agree with. I obviously like the first part of the motion and the member knows this.

The second part of the motion I have a problem with. We are running a $26.6-billion deficit. I am going to refer to some words from Roy Romanow and Tommy Douglas, who said that when governments are in debt, they are actually not making policy decisions any more on behalf of their people. They are making policy decisions on behalf of the people they owe the money to.

What I see by running up large successive deficits and accumulating more debt, which the first part of the motion could easily deal with, is a policy of letting bankers decide for us what we should be doing.

Is that a wise way of doing it? I am guessing Roy Romanow would not agree with it. We should be paying down the debt and reducing the deficits, so that those on tougher means with lower incomes do not have to continue paying taxes to finance our out-of-control spending.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is left out of that analysis is the importance of revenue in balancing a budget. The corporate tax rate went from 28% in the year 2000 to just 15% today. Every point of the corporate tax rate is worth over $2 billion, and he talks about the magnitude of deficit.

The fact is that the Conservatives and Liberals both got there together. That decrease in taxes started under Chrétien and Paul Martin and it was finalized by Stephen Harper. The story was that private industry would take those tens of billions of dollars and invest them in the Canadian economy. That did not happen.

The promise of what those tax cuts were meant to do was never realized. The fact is that money could be better spent. There is no way that we will ever balance a budget if we do not raise enough revenue.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member overstated it when he said that these benefits would flow to families or individuals earning over $100,000. According to the PBO and its distributional analysis, looking at 2024 when there is a total expenditure of $6.8 billion, 86% of that will go to individuals earning under $97,000.

I do not want to completely understate the amount of money at issue here, though. It will be over $900 million that will flow to individuals with incomes over $97,000, so there money potentially to be saved.

I have a question, though, with respect to the expense on dental care. If we look at the math over the five years and if we were to cap it at $97,000, we would see $3.5 billion in savings. However, if we look at the NDP's promise and the costing from the PBO, it would be $4.9 billion in expenditure. Therefore, the math does not add up. What are the member's comments on that?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the cap we are proposing is at $90,000, not at $97,000, so there is a little extra revenue to be made up there. It is weighted to the first year, in part because there is a big backlog. However, the member will notice that the ongoing operating cost of that program goes down significantly in year two and thereafter.

Again, this is not a question of money; this is a question of political will. The math is there to make this work. If it is the question of a small additional investment at the outset in order to get it up and going, that is quite reasonable. If the House wants it and if the government wants it, surely we can get it done. We have money for Mastercard and Loblaws. That is the kind of money we are talking about to make up for the small difference that the member mentioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's intervention.

I do not think that anyone in the House is against the idea of providing dental care to Quebeckers and Canadians. There is just one massive problem: Health is a provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague was talking about political will. This is not a decision to be made in the House, here in Ottawa. This is a decision that has to be made in Quebec City. The National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously called for an increase in health transfers. It has been calling for that for years.

If my colleague agrees this is a question of political will, would he also agree to reopen the Constitution on this issue? Personally, I have no problem with that. In fact, we would have a lot of requests if that were to happen.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that we support the idea of increasing health transfers to the provinces. We cannot have an accord with the provinces without having a negotiation. There is no negotiation without a willingness from the House. Let's establish a willingness here and then negotiate with the provinces.