House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was young.
Joe Oliver ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the NDP's bureaucratic plan provides a small percentage of families with access to day care at a huge cost.
Our plan will benefit every one of the four million Canadian families with children. It will benefit them all, and disproportionately benefit those with lower and middle incomes. This is a good plan for Canadians and we are proud of it.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, to claim a surplus in 2015 the late Jim Flaherty raised taxes in each of the past four years: payroll taxes, tariff taxes, taxes on small business owners and credit unions—billions of dollars per year. He chopped services for returning veterans, forensic labs, immigration offices, national parks, the environment, food safety, and the list goes on.
Why did the government inflict all of that pain on ordinary Canadians for a deeply flawed income-splitting scheme that discriminates against 85% of Canadian households?
Joe Oliver ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, our government has increased transfers to the provinces by 50%, to $65 billion this year. Every single province has benefited in social transfers, health transfers, equalization. We are proud of our program because our program is going to benefit four million Canadians.
The Liberal Party would rather spend money on bureaucracy. We trust mom and dad, the people who care most about their children.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, all those transfers were in the budget of 2005.
Mr. Flaherty warned that income splitting would be too costly and unfair. He also—
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
My goodness, they are are testy, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Flaherty warned that income splitting was too costly and unfair. He also worried about weak economic growth.
On page 43 of the government's fiscal update, the Conservatives confirm that the rate of Canadian economic growth will actually drop every single year through to 2019. Investments in public infrastructure could help turn that around, so says the Chamber of Commerce, the premiers, the Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the G20.
Will the government shift $2 billion from flawed income splitting to incremental infrastructure investment for greater growth?
Joe Oliver ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we now have more confirmation that the Liberal leader favours giving money to bureaucrats over middle-class families. Let me read a quote from this weekend:
Very clear now that [the Liberal Party of Canada] prioritizes money in the hands of Ottawa bureaucrats not Canadian families with children.
Do members know who went out of her way to reconfirm that? It was none other than the Liberal Party candidate for Ottawa Centre.
Is this candour or a gaffe? With the Liberals, it is hard to know.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, the government's figures indicate that Canada's economic growth is going to decline every year until 2019. Investing in our roads, bridges and public transit would be good for economic growth, but the Conservatives have cut infrastructure funding by 90%.
Instead, their income splitting will not create any jobs and will help only the wealthiest 15% of households.
How does cutting infrastructure to help the wealthiest 15% of Canadians boost our economy today?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, it is sad to hear the Liberal Party attacking families with children. The changes we have put in place will benefit 100% of the over four million Canadian families with children.
Let us not forget that it was the Liberal Party that opposed our GST cuts, which benefited all Canadians. All 35 million Canadians saw a decrease in the taxes they pay. Thanks to this government, Canadians are enjoying the lowest federal tax burden this country has seen in 60 years.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister claims to want to help out ordinary Canadians, but someone only got to hear about his plans if they could fork out $800 for lunch on Bay Street. Bay Street executives are the ones who qualify as ordinary Canadians for the minister. It is no wonder that he came up with his multi-billion dollar income-splitting scheme that helps so few Canadians.
Now we learn that he actually plans to borrow the money to pay for a plan that does absolutely nothing for 85% of Canadians. Is this is the new Conservative math, to borrow from everybody just to help out the wealthiest few?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, only the NDP could say that every Canadian parent with children is among the wealthiest few. There are four million parents with kids. One hundred per cent of Canadian families with children, including single moms and dads, all of them, will receive a significant benefit from the family tax cut, with an average benefit of $1,200 a year. Maybe for the NDP that is just walking-around money, but for Canadian families that means they will be able to do more to take care of their kids and do the most important work in the country as parents.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So suddenly, Mr. Speaker, being a single parent is going to be helpful to getting income splitting from the government, an outright and falsified mistruth of the facts. Governing is about serious choices. On this side, we believe in universal and affordable child care. On that side, they believe in schemes that only help 15% of all Canadians. Conservatives chose to shut down Veterans Affairs offices, slash food inspection, and cut rail safety, but it is Canadians who are paying for it.
When are the Conservatives going to finally abandon their multi-billion dollar scheme that does nothing for 85% of all Canadians?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, the NDP union-run, government-knows-best daycare scheme is anything but universal. Its own plan says it would only benefit 360,000 Canadian households, less than 10% of families with kids. Compare that to this Conservative family tax cut plan that provides a net benefit to 100% of families with children under the age of 18, with an average benefit of $1,200 a year.
The NDP plan does nothing for rural parents, it does nothing for parents who are on late night shift work, it does nothing for parents who choose to give up some income to work at home with their kids. We are supporting all of those parents.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the economic and fiscal update just does not get the job done. Instead of investing in people and job creation, the Conservatives are handing out tax cuts to the wealthiest Canadians and leaving the majority of Canadians falling further and further behind, like the families who are paying more for their monthly child care than for their mortgages.
Why has the government yet again failed to deliver the 125,000 child care spaces it promised?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
In fact, Mr. Speaker, through our record transfers to the provinces, the Canada social transfer, we have helped to lead to the creation of even more daycare spaces. The family tax cut plan involves an increase of $1,000 in the child care tax credit.
However, the NDP plan on child care is this. It wants to tax 100% of families with kids in order to provide a subsidy through union-run daycare for 10% of families. Our approach is to recognize the choices made by all parents, all families, all four million of them, not just 10% of them.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, child care is not the only broken promise by the government. Instead of fixing the Social Security Tribunal, the Conservatives have made it worse. The backlogs have increased and there are now more than 14,500 Canadians waiting to have their cases heard. Now the tribunal is hiring more members to deal with the backlog, but why did the government put a cap on the number of tribunal members in the first place?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, I will take that as an indication of the NDP's support for the budget implementation act, which proposes that we hire additional Social Security Tribunal members so that we can more speedily render decisions.
I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of the process of reconsideration of employment insurance refusals being done by officials in my department, we have decreased by approximately 90% the number of those refusals that are going for adjudication at the tribunal. A faster process means better results for Canadians. That is what this government is delivering.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the Social Security Tribunal of Canada was unfair, partisan and in way over its head.
Now we have learned that only five of the 58 full-time members appointed by the Conservative government are francophones and there is not a single francophone in the appeal division. This Conservative boondoggle is violating the rights of francophones and limiting their access to justice.
Will the minister finally ensure that this tribunal respects francophones' rights?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member is totally wrong. One-third of the members of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada speak French. That is higher than the percentage of the population that speaks French. We are making sure that we have a high percentage of decision-makers on the tribunal who speak French and can provide services in both official languages.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada's response to the crisis in Syria has been completely embarrassing.
With millions of Syrian refugees displaced, Canada agreed to take in a mere 1,300. Now we are learning that in June the minister knew full well that there was no way Canada would meet this goal. The minister fudged the numbers, and reached all the way back to 2011 to make his numbers seem bigger and pretend that Canada was on track.
Why did the minister mislead Canadians?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, that question is completely fact-free.
One thousand seven hundred and eighty-two Syrians have come to Canada as refugees. They are in this country. We have overfulfilled our commitment to bringing 200 government-assisted refugees to this country. The number of applications from private sponsors is growing. There is no backlog.
What is embarrassing is that the NDP, which claims to want to help refugees in Syria, would have us do nothing on terrorism and would have us do nothing in Iraq. New Democrats voted against our Combating Terrorism Act, are against the revocation of passports, and are against the revocation of citizenship. New Democrats have no credibility on the Syrian issue.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, the question was about refugees.
This minister took away health care for refugees. He is taking away social assistance. Conservatives are doing everything they can to make it more and more difficult for Canada to help vulnerable refugees.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by the tragic conflict in Syria. Helping them is a core Canadian value. The government promised to help 1,300 refugees.
Why did the Conservatives only accept and help 200 government-assisted refugees?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, we committed to assisting 200 refugees with government assistance. We have gone far beyond that, and 1,782 Syrian refugees are here.
What is outrageous is that member is not even listening to her own colleagues, who acknowledge that health care for refugees has never stopped being delivered under this government.
She should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise. She should stand up for the real interests of refugees. Canada is at the forefront of response in Syria and elsewhere.
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. A joint report by the Norwegian Refugee Council and the International Rescue Committee is clear: developed countries are not doing enough. Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq are at the end of their rope.
What is Canada doing? Not a whole lot. I remember a Canada that used to welcome refugees with open arms.
Will the government finally agree to help those in need?
