Debates of Feb. 5th, 2020

Government Contracts

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes asked a question about flooding, but did not mention climate change at all. He talked about the costs of climate change but did not address the core subject, which is the fact that climate change is a crisis that will cost us.

I am here to talk about something a little different. I welcome this opportunity to reiterate our government's commitment to transparent government and making Canada's voice heard at the UN, notably through our candidacy to serve on the United Nations Security Council.

This government is making an important contribution to a safer, more just, prosperous and sustainable world. We have renewed our long-standing commitment to UN peacekeeping and are leading innovative approaches to advance conflict resolution and peace building.

We know that working together is the only way to make progress in this uncertain world. The Security Council is among the most important fora for addressing international peace and security challenges and, if elected, Canada will be a committed voice for building a better future by working together.

Our officials have been working arduously to prepare to assume the responsibilities associated with a potential term on the council, should we be elected. As a positive, constructive and responsible contributor to this important body, we have a heavy responsibility and we must be ready to engage on a wide range of issues of international peace and security. Canada would serve on the Security Council alongside key world powers, providing direct access to advance our priorities and interests bilaterally and around the world.

Global Affairs Canada is arranging for specialized training on Security Council working methods, procedures and related issues, which will equip our teams in Ottawa and New York to engage on key global security issues relating to the council's work. Building up our teams on Security Council matters is a valuable activity irrespective of the result of the vote on our candidacy, since Canada engages with the council in many other ways as an active UN member state.

The planned training is commonplace among Security Council candidates, a majority of whom undertake similar training from the same organization each year, including seven of the 10 elected members of the council. The supplier identified so far, New York-based Security Council Report, is a highly specialized, reputable non-profit organization with the mission of advancing transparency, effectiveness and accountability of the council. It is the leading provider of training in council procedures and working methods, and nations competing with Canada for the same UNSC seat have already received this training.

The standard procedures have been followed in line with Treasury Board contracting policies in the development of the planned training. No contract has been awarded yet. Instead, Global Affairs Canada pre-identified Security Council Report as a qualified supplier, given the highly specialized nature of the training and the organization's unique capabilities. To be clear, Mr. Rock's work at Security Council Report is in a volunteer capacity, and he derives no financial or other benefits from any contract awarded by Canada or anyone else.

I am proud of everything our officials are doing to prepare to make the most of a potential term at the Security Council.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are concerned. Just today, the Peschisolido report was released by the Ethics Commissioner as part of a litany of ethical concerns and breaches coming from the Liberal benches. When it comes to Mr. Rock, who seemed confused about why there would be an ethical question raised, we know that Mr. Rock took a free trip to a fishing lodge owned by the Irving family when he was serving in this place.

The concerns Canadians have about ethics, the confusion as to why this would be raised by the official opposition, speaks to the reason why we will continue to apply a vigorous eye to all of the government's actions. Any issues that give rise to concern will be referred to the Ethics Commissioner when appropriate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has presented Canada's candidacy to serve on the UN Security Council because we believe Canada's voice matters, and that we can help the council build a safer and more peaceful world.

To prepare for these responsibilities, Global Affairs Canada has followed routine, transparent contracting procedures, posting a notice proposing training from a highly reputable organization that has helped prepare most existing elected Security Council members. We will continue to engage with multilateral organizations and Canada's place within them.

Taxation

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians sent a clear message to the government in November of 2019. They wanted the government to work across parties in the best interests of Canadians.

On December 9, 2019, the Minister of Finance announced his proposal to change the tax system for people making $140,000 or less. If the government proceeds with the changes as announced, it would cost Canadians a staggering $6 billion annually, yet 47% of Canadians will receive no benefit whatsoever from this tax change. Many of the people who will be left out are those who live in poverty and are in the greatest need.

New Democrats believe that there are better ways to invest these funds to get help to families who urgently need it, and we are proposing an alternative. If this tax cut were capped so that all benefits would go to those earning less than $90,000 a year, it would free up $1.6 billion from the government's projected cost to invest in other priorities, such as dental care.

According to estimates prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, providing dental coverage for uninsured families making less than $90,000 would cost $1.8 billion in the first year and approximately $830 million per year for every year after that. This program would give immediate help to 4.3 million people and save our health care system tens of millions of dollars every year.

Almost 20% of Canadians avoid the dentist every year because of the cost, and emergency room visits due to dental emergencies cost taxpayers at least $155 million annually. Often, these visits do not address underlying dental issues and are followed by return visits and ongoing pressures on our health care system. Also, I have met seniors who told me that they have had to blend their solid foods into liquid because they are unable to chew the food properly.

The program the NDP is proposing would save households at least $1,200 annually and still allow the government to push forward the proposed tax cut to families earning less than $90,000 a year. We believe that this is a constructive proposal that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of millions of Canadians, particularly the people who are in greatest need.

The government's intention was to have Parliament vote on its proposed tax changes on December 11, 2019, before Parliament adjourned for the holiday season. That vote was deferred after the NDP proposed the changes to it. New Democrats are still waiting for a response from the government on our proposal. We are encouraged by the mention of dental care in the throne speech as an idea to explore, and this proposal is a great opportunity to give meaning and action to those words and demonstrate a real commitment to helping Canadians who need relief now.

It is a chance for the Liberals to show Canadians that they are willing to work with the opposition in a minority government to deliver much-needed services to Canadians.

My question to the government is this: Will it be willing to work with the NDP to deliver dental services to seniors, children and families making $90,000 or less?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, all Canadians deserve to share in the benefits that come from an economy that is strong and growing, and right from day one, our government has taken action to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to do so.

We created the Canada child benefit, which is providing more money to the families that need it most. By doing so, we have helped lift nearly 300,000 kids out of poverty and given them a better start in life. Also, because we boosted the guaranteed income supplement, close to 900,000 seniors are now benefiting from greater income security, 70% of whom are women. This helped lift 57,000 vulnerable seniors out of poverty.

With the introduction of Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, a 10-year, $40-billion investment that will give more Canadians a place to call home, we are lifting 530,000 families out of housing need and reducing chronic homelessness by 50%.

We also introduced a tax break for the middle class that took effect in 2016. That tax cut is benefiting more than nine million hard-working Canadians. Today, a typical middle-class family of four will receive, on average, about $2,000 more each year as a result of this middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit.

In December, as one of the first actions of our new mandate, our government proposed to lower taxes further for the middle class and those working hard to join it. Specifically, the proposal is to increase the basic personal amount that people can earn before having to pay federal income tax. By raising the basic personal amount to $15,000 by 2023, we would be cutting taxes for close to 20 million Canadians. It would also mean that nearly 1.1 million more Canadians, low-income Canadians, to be precise, would no longer be paying any federal income tax at all.

By 2023, single individuals would save close to $300 in taxes each year, while families, including those led by single parents, would save nearly $600 in taxes per year. To ensure the tax relief goes to the people who need it the most, we would phase out the benefits of the increased basic personal amount for wealthy individuals.

With more money to cover their necessities, Canadians can focus on new opportunities for themselves and their families and less on simply making ends meet. It is what our plan to help Canada's middle class grow and prosper is all about, and our plan is working.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport did not hear my question. My question was whether the government would be willing to work with the NDP to deliver dental care to seniors, children and families making $90,000 or less.

I am so disappointed that the government did not even bother to ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance would respond to this question. Instead, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport read off a message box, without answering the actual question I posed to him.

It is not a good way forward for the government, a minority government, to operate in this way. I am very disappointed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member even referenced the Minister of Health's response with regard to this.

As she is fighting for those most vulnerable, I am outlining the government's strategy to helping those most vulnerable in our society and how we have fought from day one to reduce poverty. We are ahead of our poverty reduction targets. We are fighting for those most vulnerable, not only in St. Catharines but across the country, and I am proud of that fact.

Our plan is working. We can do better. We can always fight to do better. I know the hon. member referenced the Minister of Health's comments with regard to dental care, and it is an exciting opportunity to work on for the future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)