Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Opposition Motion — Proposed tax changes

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when the member makes reference to rhetoric, for almost 20 years I sat opposition in the Manitoba legislature, and for roughly 15 of those years the NDP was in government.

Many, and particularly members from the Bloc, will say that the provinces do have a role to play in dental care. Some of the saddest stories we could hear are from northern rural Manitoba, and a lot of the inner city areas in Winnipeg North. The need is there, and it is very real. I have said that. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that. The Minister of Health has acknowledged that. All Liberals recognize the issue. For years and years, the NDP in Manitoba never got it done. It refused to address that particular issue.

Now the NDP in opposition here in Ottawa is saying that we have to deal with it. The standing committee is going to be dealing with it. There is going to be a study in regard to it. We are very hopeful and optimistic that if we can work with provinces and support provinces, we might be able to do something.

We are starting the ball going forward, which is more than I could have said during the 15 years I was in opposition, when the NDP was in government and when it virtually ignored the issue completely.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate with my colleague opposite. The member raised the dynamic where the NDP sees the government doing something and says it is never enough.

From a Conservative viewpoint, we have a very similar observation when members on that side get pressed for the way they conduct their business. Immediately, the point their finger and start blaming Mr. Harper for areas that were directly under their control. It is interesting that this member still does not see that.

While I am on the subject of things that the member may not see, I do appreciate the member's commitment to the House and his engagement on so many files, but he is not doing his rookie members any favours by constantly getting up and robbing them of the chance to defend their government and to actually cut their teeth in this place.

In all seriousness, the member did raise the subject of tax cuts versus raising the threshold, saying a tax cut is a tax cut is a tax cut and it is all the same. If we agree with that, it is effect and not the actual substance that matters, the government continues to say things like “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” and yet it keeps talking about working for the middle class.

I am getting very tired and frustrated with this. I want everyone in Canada to do well. Utilizing the term “middle class” kind of stratifies people into little boxes. I would ask the member, who served as an MLA and as an MP, whether he would ever go into his constituency office and say, “You're middle class, so I'm going to help you. You're not middle class, so I'm not going to help you. You're making too much money, so I'm not going to help you” or would the member say it is his duty to stand up and try to make sure that everyone could get ahead, that everyone's children and grandchildren could be better off.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and all one has to do is take a look at the Canada child benefit program and look at the way in which Stephen Harper worked it under the old system. Millionaires were being subsidized, and it did not matter if one made $10,000 a year or $150,000 a year: There was no difference in terms of amounts.

One of the first actions we took and have enhanced since then was to recognize that some individuals need more than others. That is reflected in the policies. It is the same thing we are doing with the tax changes this year by increasing the basic exemption.

There are many examples I could give. I can tell my friend across the way that we always try to arrange it so that whoever walks into my office in Winnipeg North walks away happier than when they came in. We do not necessarily resolve every problem we get, but we try. I would like to think I advocate for 100% of my constituents.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is someone whom my colleague opposite did not mention in his fine speech, and that is unfortunate. I am referring to Paul Martin, who practically invented the fiscal imbalance.

I do not know whether my colleagues remember this, but from 1996 to 1997, immediately after the referendum, which was a very important date for us, Paul Martin significantly restructured the transfer payments. Again and again, he made cuts to transfer payments to Quebec that amounted to almost $2 billion, which led to what is known as a fiscal imbalance. Even today, intense pressure is placed on provincial governments when the federal government can more or less balance its budget by reducing transfer payments.

If my colleague is so open-minded and concerned about the middle class, why does he not agree to increase health transfers to 5.2% annually, as requested by various provinces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I actually have a history on that particular issue.

There was a time in the early nineties when there was an agreement we would have a tax change. Provinces were given a tax shift, given more money through taxes, and in return the money was taken away from health care transfers. Jean Chrétien said no, and said that we would establish a floor to ensure the federal government would always have an interest in providing support for heath care for the provinces throughout the country.

If we take a look at the many years we have been in government since then, particularly the last four years, we see that today we give more money to health care than we have ever given before. Not only do we do that, but we also highlight issues we believe are important to all Canadians, including mental health. This is an area that we talk a great deal about. We talk about the issue of palliative care, on which we have had much debate inside this chamber, and issues such as dental plans or pharmacare plans.

These are important issues for all Canadians. It does not matter where they live. If there is an interest, this government is listening. Where we can act, we act. We have demonstrated that. Every day we work as hard as we can to deliver good-quality services for Canadians, and we have a heck of a good civil service to make sure that happens.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I would like to thank my NDP colleagues for using the first opposition day to urge the government to work collaboratively for working-class Canadians.

In this minority Parliament, the Liberals have a choice. They can provide a tax break to people who are making more than $90,000 a year or they can offer dental coverage to families making less than $90,0000 annually. In fact, if I were the Liberals, I would be jumping at the chance to support an opportunity to work so well for Canadians. What we have been able to provide here is an opportunity for the Liberals to see what they could accomplish instead of giving a few more dollars to people who do not actually need the money.

We know right now that we are leaving millions of Canadians behind. They cannot afford to go to the dentist. We know that this is causing incredible stress on our emergency rooms. We are spending $155 million annually on dental-related emergencies. These are preventive things. This is money we would not have to be spending if we had dental care for people who need it.

By providing access to oral health, we would also ensure that we are preventing other serious health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, dementia, respiratory infections, diabetic complications, renal disease complications and premature birth and low birth weight.

We need to start protecting all Canadians, particularly those who are most vulnerable. I have spent a great deal of time in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, which is a very diverse riding. There are large number of students in my riding, and there is a large diversity in socio-economic status. I have spent a lot of time on doorsteps talking to people, and I am unbelievably surprised by the incredible support for a dental program in this country.

What is interesting to me is that it is not just those people who would benefit from a dental program who are so supportive of it. It is, in fact, Canadians of all economic backgrounds, whether they can afford their own dental care or not, who recognize that we have an obligation to make sure all people within our community are taken of.

I spoke to a constituent of mine, a young father who lived in a lovely home and clearly had a level of income that is quite comfortable. He had two daughters. He spoke to me at length about his support for medicare, pharmacare, mental health care and dental care. I said to him that he obviously had the money to take his kids to the dentist and asked him why he was worried about dental care. His response to me, which is something every person in this House needs to acknowledge, was that his children's well-being and his well-being depend on his community and country doing well. He was worried about the kids at his daughters' school and their ability to access dental care.

If Canadians like this young father can be generous and understand the obligation we have to represent Canadians and do what is best for Canada, I really find it problematic that there are people in this House who do not recognize it. We know that across Canada there is incredible support for a dental program, and the majority of Canadians who have elected us to represent them in this House have asked for and supported dental care. What right do we have to not support that? What right do we have to not support dental care when the people who put us in this building to represent them have said that they want dental care?

It is also really important, and people have brought this up before, that we talk a bit about how the Liberals say that there is no money for things that they do not want to put money into while there is always, always money for the things they think are important. This is not the first time that members will hear this, but Loblaws does not need Canadian taxpayer dollars. Mastercard does not Canadian taxpayer dollars. The ones who do need it are young families who cannot afford their dental care and university students and families who are struggling to make ends meet in my province, where 19,000 people were laid off in January. Those people need support. They need support to be able to access dental care.

A budget is coming out in our province today, and it is not going to get better there. There are people hurting in Alberta, and this is a concrete thing that I and all members can fight for on behalf of our constituents.

I would also like to take a moment to offer to my Conservative colleagues the thought that millions of Canadians do not have dental care, but the biggest benefits from the Liberal tax cuts go to the wealthy. Conservatives talk a lot about standing up for working Canadians, so I can only assume that they will be supporting our plan to cap the cut for the wealthiest and invest those savings in a dental care plan that will benefit millions of hard-working Canadians.

I am so proud to be a New Democrat, to represent Edmonton Strathcona and to have a proposal that would immediately help 4.3 million people and save our health care system tens of millions of dollars each year. It is time we started delivering on the needs of everyday Canadians and it is time we started investing in Canadians and their needs. Dental care is health care. Canadians should not have to choose between taking care of their teeth and taking care of their health.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a distributional analysis from the PBO. I looked at 2024, as an example. If we capped it at $97,000, meaning $97,000 and up, there would be savings of about $934 million, which is not insignificant.

My question is about dental coverage, because there is a question about spending that $934 million on dental care when it has not been fully studied in this place and it is really within provincial jurisdiction. I am not discounting it as a priority, but why would we not look to something like the Canada workers benefit, which would have a direct impact on poverty and be much better targeted? It is within the purpose of the motion and it would clearly be within federal jurisdiction.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the motion is about dental care and the need we have seen across the country for dental care. While there are a number of different things that the NDP has been fighting very hard for, in this motion we are looking at dental care and how we can support people who need some support for their dental care.

We are not saying this should apply across the board; this is for families that actually need dental care support.

I thank the member for bringing up options for other ways we can support Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, Bloc Québécois MPs are progressive and in favour of social democracy. I like the idea of helping the least fortunate. I am sure everyone here likes that idea.

However, it would have been so simple to include the right for Quebec to opt out with full compensation. If that had been in the motion, the Bloc Québécois would probably have voted in favour of it.

I would encourage the NDP to amend its motion. That way, we might manage to accomplish something together.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Bloc is a progressive party. It is nice to have them on our side of the room.

We would like to see a plan that would be national in scope. We are looking for dental care that would be available to any Canadian who needs it. Whether or not there is an opportunity to discuss that further, I would have to talk to my colleagues.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Liberals speak today and the message seems to be hurry up and wait. The fact is right now we have a lot of Canadians who are suffering from poor oral health who need this care right now and yet, the Liberals do not want to go all the way because they believe half measures are appropriate. It is a party that has taken 23 years to get to pharmacare and now wants to delay dental care when it is evident that so many Canadians need it.

I am hoping my colleague can illustrate how great this need is and what the result in savings will be to some of the lowest income Canadians.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that, unfortunately, we are used to hearing the right words from across the floor but do not necessarily see the actions to follow through with them.

I could tell members anecdote after anecdote from the people I have talked to who would benefit so much right now from having access to dental care. I have talked to people who are so ashamed that they cannot afford dental care that they cover their mouth when they speak. They are so ashamed that they cannot pay for this basic ability to take care of their own dental hygiene that they will not apply for jobs and are hesitant to go out in public.

These things are happening in Canada in my riding and it is really quite devastating. We have proposed such an easy fix. We can do this.

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I think that if you seek it, you will find consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the Opposition motion in the name of the Member for New Westminster—Burnaby, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 26, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

(Motion agreed to)

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in the House to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay.

For the folks back home, what we are discussing today is something on which the Liberal government has promised to work collegially, in this minority Parliament, to try to bring solutions, without our throwing brickbats at each other. However, as we are seeing throughout this debate, the Liberals are absolutely dead set against a reasonable solution. The solution is for a serious problem: the lack of dental care for more and more Canadians across this country.

I talked to a young woman the other day who said something that I thought was very powerful. She said that in Canada today the economic dividing line is between those who have dental care and those who do not. Those who do not have dental care are put at such a basic sense of risk, and there is also a risk of damage to self-worth. From knocking on the doors in my region and in my community, I have seen the impacts of not having access to dental care. In the great regions in the Far North, in the communities of the Cree, the dental crisis is a serious medical crisis.

What are we proposing? Whenever we come forward with a reasonable suggestion, the Liberals say, “There is the crazy NDP, pie in the sky. It is never good enough.” They tell us to stick with the Liberals, who make all the great promises but do not ever actually deliver. The pharmacare promise came so long ago that I think I was a child at the time. At least emotionally I was a child. The Liberals are still promising pharmacare, but we just have to wait a bit longer.

A great analogy for this relates to a loaf of bread. Why fight for a big loaf of bread? We can cut half a loaf of bread and give it to Galen Weston and tell everyone else they are loved and cared for. We are so cared for that the Liberals now have a Minister of Middle Class Prosperity. If this were a drinking game, and every time the Prime Minister said “middle class” we had to take a drink and then a shot for the follow-up line “those trying to join it”, people would be bombed at the end of a four-minute speech by a member of the government.

I say that in all seriousness, because the Prime Minister grew up in a very different middle class than my father and mother did. I do not know the middle class he grew up with in the town of Mount Royal, but my mother and father were the children of hard rock miners. My mom quit school at 15 and got a job. My dad quit school at 16 and got a job. He became a member of the middle class at 40, when he could go to university. My mom would type his notes when he would come home after 12 hours on an all-night bus to Timmins. By getting a university degree, he became a professor of economics. That was the middle class.

Middle class meant that my dad could buy a little house. It was not a big house, and it took him 25 years to pay it off. We had one car, and when that car died it just stayed in the driveway. My dad never got another one. Middle class meant that his kids could go to school and come out without debt, because he had a summer job. That was the middle class.

When we ask the middle class prosperity minister what the middle class is, she says it is hard to define, that it is for people who have stuff. That is it? She says it is for people who have kids in hockey. What about the families who do not have kids in hockey? What about the families who are working three jobs full time and are not able to pay their rent?

It is called the gig economy. The finance minister, who is pretty much the minister of the 1%, tells us to get used to it; it is the new normal. It is not the new normal. It is the direct result of deliberate economic policies by the Liberals and the Conservatives, going back and forth, policies that have deteriorated the once strong middle class that was the basis of the economic engine in this country.

When we talk about dental care now, with people who have to make a choice among paying their rent, looking after their children, getting their car fixed so that they can get to work and getting their teeth fixed, we are in a very different economic reality. What is the solution? It is quite simple. The Liberals, whenever they do not know what to do, give money to wealthy people and tell us that we will all benefit. The first thing the finance minister did was give a tax cut to the middle class and those wanting to join it. In other words, those making $150,000 a year are going to love the Liberals, and for those making $40,000 a year, they have nothing but a lot of nice affirmations.

The minister of the 1% has given us $14 billion in tax cuts over the last five years. These are cuts to revenue that could be used to invest in things the Liberals say they support, like pharmacare, and address the horrific shortage in national housing. They keep saying housing will receive the greatest and most incredible investment ever, but they are just not spending money on it. They do not even know where the money is because they gave it away in tax cuts.

What about their latest tax cut? Those who make $150,000 a year will do very well, but those who make less will get very little to diddly-squat. The reasonable alternative is to say that those making $90,000 or more do not need the extra money and to take that money and put it into a national dentistry fund to help 1.4 million Canadians.

The Liberals seem to think these finances are shocking. The finances were not shocking when they wrote a cheque of $4.5 billion to Trans Mountain to get it to go away. Then we bought ourselves a pipeline, and now they are adding $1 billion every few months, no problem there. They did not have to factor that out. They did not have to cost it out. Now they are asking how to cost out a national dental care program. What we know is that in first year it will be used by a lot of people, but then it will settle in at about $800 million a year.

It is pretty clear that if we decide not to give more benefits to the rich, the people who so-called have all the stuff, and put in a dental plan, it will make life much better for many Canadians. It is doable, but it is about political will.

The other issue is about federal and provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec clearly has a lot of credibility when it comes to providing services to its people. The NDP upholds the principle of asymmetrical federalism. If the Government of Quebec decided to offer a program, it would be able to develop a plan and receive federal funding. That is reasonable.

To the other provinces, like Jason Kenney's Alberta, which would love a national dental care plan and then would give it to some oil executives, we would say no, that the money has to go to dental care. We have to protect the rights of citizens in this. If we are going to change how we tax money to help people, we have to make sure it will go there.

In my 16 years in the House, I have seen a continual deterioration of the middle class through deliberate policies, like the policies that downloaded the cost of university tuition onto students year after year so that students are now coming out with $50,000 or $60,000 to $100,000 in debt that they cannot get out of. I have seen the rise of the so-called precarious gig economy, precarious because it favours corporations, as it does not require standards to be in place for employment. It is crippling the young generation that is carrying those costs. I have seen the rise of housing prices in urban areas and in rural areas like mine, where right now 2,000 homeless people are in the area of the city of Timmins, a city of 44,000 people. Despite all the volunteers we have, they cannot address that crisis without a national investment. What do we get from the government? It says we have the greatest national housing investment ever, but we are not seeing any buildings.

This is about choice. It is about the choice to invest in housing. It is about the choice to invest in our students. It is about the choice to invest in infrastructure. Here we have a clear choice to not give to the rich and make a plan to establish a national dental care plan.

I appeal to my Liberal colleagues to do the right thing, work with us and send the message that this minority Parliament can work together.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the element of the motion that suggests the basic personal amount should be targeted more specifically to people in need and middle-class Canadians. I would like to think I had a middle-class upbringing, having been raised by two teachers, and I think that should be the focus of our efforts.

Some of my concern comes from looking at the distributional analysis of the PBO. In 2024, those with incomes above $97,000 will only receive less than 14% of the benefit. It is a bit disingenuous to suggest this will only flow to upper-income Canadians or principally to them.

My other challenge is with the math from the NDP in this instance. Over five years, the distributional analysis suggests that for incomes over $97,000, the basic personal amount will be about $3.5 billion, yet the dental care promise in the NDP platform is $5 billion. These numbers do not add up and that is my fundamental challenge with this motion.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my hon. colleague was raised by teachers as I am sure he can do math. I had one teacher in my family, my father, who was very good at math, but he would say his son was not so much. That is why I rely on the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well. When I look at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, it says the benefits do go to those making above $90,000, just as the previous tax cut went to those making above $90,000.

There is always a reason for the Liberals not to do the right thing, but when we see the costs of this figured out, it would probably cost $1.8 billion in the first year and then probably about $800 million. That may be low, but the impacts on society are going to be much better.

I would ask my hon. colleague how much of a benefit we are getting from the $12 billion or $15 billion that was signed off on with respect to the pipeline. Has he done a cost-benefit analysis of how that is helping the middle class? That is probably a question he gets asked all the time in his riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay and appreciate some of his comments. He mentioned the middle class quite often in his speech and commented on the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity. He said there is not really a definition from our Liberal colleagues on what the middle class is.

Can the hon. member give me a definition of what the middle class is according to the NDP? What would the average income per household be? I would like to know if the New Democrats have a definition for what the middle class is within their platform.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Rather than talking about the middle class, which I think has become so damaged, we have to start talking about the new working class, which is no longer only blue-collar but also white-collar workers.

There are professors who are basically getting minimum wage and working on endless contracts. At one point, being a professor was considered the ultimate white-collar job. We are seeing more and more white-collar workers on these perpetual short-term work cycles.

Therefore, this myth that there is a middle class that we are all part of has become problematic. We have seen a deterioration of that class, and the new working class is no longer just a blue-collar situation. It is also people who are on these endless contract cycles and burdened with student debt. Once we start talking about the real relationship of class, I think we can start to talk about targeted solutions for them.

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

Madam Speaker, as I listened to our hon. colleague, I could see how devoted he is to his people, and I really appreciate that.

People have been talking about collaboration for a while now. We proved it last week by accomplishing something major for the people of Quebec and the other provinces.

What the Bloc Québécois is saying is not complicated. If the New Democrats amend their motion to say that they support Quebec having the right to opt out with full compensation, the Bloc Québécois could potentially get on board.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the NDP believes that the principle of asymmetrical federalism is fundamental to Canada. Quebec has many progressive programs to defend the values, interests and quality of life of Quebec residents. That is obvious to the NDP.

With regard to the question about the motion, the member will have to speak to his critic. However, the NDP feels it is necessary to implement a program that will give people in Quebec and other regions of Canada access to dental care.