House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was varieties.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this government is transferring record amounts of money to the provinces for health care. Those 6% increases are continuing exactly as scheduled.
In the future, they will continue to increase by a minimum of 3%. Frankly, most years much more than that. This government's record is unparalleled when it comes to supporting our health care system.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, he cannot deny what he said. During the last election campaign, he promised to keep the increase at 6%, and he broke that promise too. In fact, just after the election, true to form, he unilaterally announced, without discussion or debate, up to $36 billion in cuts to health transfers in Canada.
Now that the Prime Minister claims to have a budgetary surplus, why not use it first and foremost to avoid making cuts to our free, public health insurance? Does he want to go back to the days when the size of parents' paycheques determined whether a sick child was seen by a doctor?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, our government's record is clear. It is quite different from that of the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, which cut transfers to the provincial health care systems.
On the contrary, we have increased these transfers every year, and they will continue to increase in the future.
Our record is unparalleled and quite different from that of the party across the way.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, last night the government said that it would vote against transparency, citing the administrative burden. The transparency act would actually cut red tape and simplify the process. It would ensure that government information would be available faster, in a less costly way and in digital not paper formats.
Why does the Prime Minister oppose the modernization of our access to information system?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it was this government that modernized the system by bringing some 70 agencies and organizations under access to information that were previously not under it, something opposed by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party not only opposed that Accountability Act, it opposed union transparency and it opposed transparency for people living on first nations reserves.
We have nothing to learn on transparency from the Liberals.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government promised Canadian municipalities that the building Canada infrastructure fund projects would begin in time for the 2014 summer construction season. That promise was broken, and the fund had its funding cut by 90%.
Why borrow money for income splitting tax breaks for the rich, but not invest in job-creating infrastructure?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the facts laid out in that question are completely wrong. The government announced in the last two budgets the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history, some $70 billion over the next decade. The unfortunate reality is the Liberal Party voted against those infrastructure plans.
That is the difference. On this side we are investing in infrastructure. On the other hand, all the Liberals want is tax hikes to pay bureaucracy.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, over 1,300 people participated in the Je vois Montréal forum, where more than 200 projects to revitalize the city were presented.
Premier Couillard and Minister Poëti were in attendance, but this Conservative government once again failed to be there for Quebeckers.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his government refuses to keep an open mind about Montrealers' ideas?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I was told that the Government of Canada was represented at that conference. What is more, we are always interested in hearing people's ideas, not only about Montreal but about all regions of Canada.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, on the initiative of Ed Broadbent, the Canadian government promised to put an end to child poverty by 2000.
Twenty-five years have passed, and both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to meet that goal. In Canada, one in five children is living in poverty. We need to take immediate action here at home.
Rather than implementing tax policies that will benefit only the wealthy, will the government finally take practical measures to eliminate child poverty?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, obviously all Canadians and all parties want to continue to alleviate child poverty, and we hope to one day eliminate it.
However, there is good news. The low income rate for children has declined significantly from a peak of over 18% under the Liberal government to 8.5% currently. That means that there are over 700,000 fewer children living in poverty.
Here is what UNICEF had to say on the subject:
If Canada is faring better than other western countries in this regard, it is due to measures that are favourable to families, like tax credits, fiscal measures and benefits that are maintained or put in place to counter the effects of [poverty].
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago the House unanimously adopted Ed Broadbent's motion to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000, yet child poverty levels have remained tragically high. That is an entire generation of children who have needlessly grown up in poverty. One in five Canadian children lives in poverty today. There is no excuse for such a wealthy country like ours not to look after our most vulnerable members, our children.
Will the government commit to taking immediate action to eliminate poverty in Canada?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, yes, we will. We have already done so.
While we all continue to hope for the elimination of child poverty one day, the NDP refuses to recognize that there has been progress made. In fact, the low income rate for children has declined significantly from a peak of over 18% under the Liberal government to 8.5% currently, with over 700,000 fewer Canadian children living in low-income families.
This is in part because of the enormous benefits created by the government for low-income families, which led UNICEF recently to say that if Canada was faring better than other western countries in this regard, it was due to measures that were favourable to families, like tax credits, fiscal measures and benefits that were maintained or put in place to counter the effects of the global crisis.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, giving a huge tax break to the wealthiest families, while completely ignoring the poorest families, is not an answer to poverty.
That same UNICEF report is the one that is saying that one in five Canadian children lives in poverty today. Those children deserve better. Poverty impacts their ability to learn, to develop, to be healthy, to be fully integrated in their communities, and they need real action.
Will the government support NDP Motion No. 534 to create a national plan to eliminate child poverty?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, yes, we will. However, unlike the NDP, we will take more than just rhetorical measures. We are taking real, concrete action. This is the government that cut the GST by two points, while maintaining the low-income GST rebate at 7%, meaning a $1.1 billion benefit for low-income families.
This is the government that has lifted a million low-income families off the tax rolls altogether. This is the government that introduced the universal child care benefit, which provides now and next year over $1,900 for each family. That means a single mom with two kids under the age of six will be receiving $3,800 in cash benefit that the NDP would take away.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the chair of the Social Security Tribunal confirmed that there are significant delays in the processing of cases: 14,677 cases are languishing on her desk.
At this rate it will take 11 years to clear the backlog just for the income security section. That is shameful. For over a year, Ms. Brazeau has been in regular contact with the minister about the lack of staff at the tribunal, but the minister is asleep at the switch.
How can the minister allow such an administrative nightmare?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, thanks to my department's efficiency, we have seen a 90% decrease in employment insurance appeals. That means that almost 90% of cases are handled by public servants, without appeal. The service is quicker.
In the case of Quebeckers, the Government of Quebec has its own appeal process for benefits paid by the Quebec pension plan, which does not fall under the Social Security Tribunal.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the chair of the Social Security Tribunal told the human resources committee that she had been in continuous contact with the minister regarding the backlog. Yet, for 18 months now, that backlog has continued to grow, while the tribunal has been understaffed and working without performance standards. More than 14,600 Canadians are now waiting for a hearing.
Why did the minister not take action sooner to address the enormous mess at the Social Security Tribunal?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Mr. Speaker, again, in fact our ministry did take action by introducing a new approach toward reconsideration of EI refusals. That now happens quickly, by a public servant who, remarkably, actually picks up a phone and calls the person who has asked for a reconsideration, and sorts it out, often getting additional documentation.
This means that we are now resolving about 90% of those refusals at a reconsideration stage in a matter of weeks, without having to go through a lengthy multi-month quasi-judicial process.
In terms of the CPP cases before the tribunal, we are adding additional decision makers and taking other administrative measures to speed up the process.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, behind every one of those numbers is a person who needs to put food on the table and pay the bills.
People cannot wait years for the government to get its act together. Nearly 10,000 Canadians still waiting for an appeal are living with a disability. In many cases the uncertainty and stress of financial insecurity makes their medical conditions worse.
Will the minister commit to eliminate the backlog and finally give these Canadians the justice they need and deserve?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism
Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. That is, in part, why we have legislation before the House in the budget implementation act, which we hope the NDP will support. This would allow us to hire up to an additional 22 decision makers at the tribunal.
I am very pleased to highlight that the faster informal reconsideration process for refused EI applications means a 90% reduction in the caseload for EI, meaning we can reallocate those decision makers over to the income security division. This means we will get at that backlog of cases so we can provide the kind of service that Canadians expect and deserve.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, this week about 100 municipal officials with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are in Ottawa to remind the government that a strong Canada is built on strong communities. They are calling for significant investment to deal with the housing crisis in Canada. There are more than 1.5 million families living in inadequate housing in Canada. That is unacceptable. Will the Conservatives finally listen to the NDP and our municipal officials and protect federal investments in social housing?
Candice Bergen ConservativeMinister of State (Social Development)
Mr. Speaker, we have been working together with the provinces and the municipalities. We have made unprecedented investments in housing. In fact, our investments have helped over one million families and individuals with affordable housing.
As well, we have our homelessness partnering strategy, with the focus on housing first, so we can help people who are chronically and episodically homeless, actually solving the problem, working together with our partners in cities, municipalities and the provinces.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, representatives of municipalities from across Canada are in Ottawa today, calling on the Conservatives to stop ignoring the infrastructure deficit.
Decades of downloading and underfunding have left our cities struggling, with crumbling roads and bridges, inadequate water supplies, and an affordable housing crisis. The New Democrats are ready to work as partners with municipalities and provide the support they need to build liveable communities for Canadians.
When will Conservatives stop shortchanging our cities and commit to investing, now, in infrastructure and affordable housing?
Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, never in the history of this country has a government supported municipalities as much as we have. I realize that my colleagues do not like this because they always vote against infrastructure plans. We are providing $70 billion over the next 10 years. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been involved in this process from the beginning. We will continue to work with the federation.