Debates of Nov. 20th, 2014

Housing

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we mark National Housing Day this weekend, Canada is experiencing a housing crisis. One in four Canadians spends more than 30% of their income on shelter. For too many, this means living in poverty. Conservatives are refusing to renew social housing agreements, and 200,000 Canadians risk losing their homes. Concerned Canadians from across the country are gathering in Ottawa Friday. Will the minister listen to them, take steps to fight poverty, and make real investments in affordable housing?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, we have been listening. We have been meeting. We have, in fact, been signing agreements across the country with provinces to address the housing needs.

I met with representatives from FCM yesterday. Each one of the city representatives acknowledged that their cities have different challenges. Each is unique when it comes to housing. That is why we have invested over $1.25 billion in affordable housing, giving the provinces the jurisdiction to spend that funding where they believe it is necessary, working together with the cities and municipalities to address the issue of housing.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, more than 1.5 million families in Canada have inadequate housing.

One-quarter of Canadians spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Canada is part of the G7, a group of the seven richest countries in the world, and we cannot even provide adequate housing for our families. Come on.

Can the government at least commit to renewing its investments in social housing?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the housing agreements, they are coming to an end, because the mortgages are paid off. Canadians understand that when mortgages are paid off, they do not keep paying the bank. What we have done is provide other supports, whether it is co-op housing or other flexibility within the investment in affordable housing.

Here is another novel idea for the opposition members. For Canadians who are vulnerable, for Canadians who want to improve their housing situation, we are helping them by giving them increased benefits, like the universal childcare benefit, like the family tax cut, and like increasing their skills and abilities so they can afford housing in the regions where they live.

Poverty

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from affordable housing to poverty, Conservatives are failing Canadians. One in five children in our wealthy country lives in poverty. I am sure the Prime Minister regrets that he once called the 1989 motion on ending child poverty “the high-water mark of political stupidity in this country”.

Most people believe that caring for our children is a basic Canadian value. Will the government finally introduce a plan to eliminate poverty among our children in Canada?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, what is a Canadian value is not just talking but acting. That is what this government does. We have lifted over 225,000 children out of poverty since coming into government. UNICEF Canada said it is because of the measures we have introduced to help families directly, things like the universal childcare benefit, which we are increasing and expanding, and like our family tax cut.

Every single family in Canada with children will receive a benefit from these measures. That helps us lift Canadian families out of poverty. It helps make life more affordable for Canadian families.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, the House unanimously adopted Ed Broadbent's motion to end child poverty by 2000. After 30 years of Liberal and Conservative governments, one in five children is still living in poverty. It is unacceptable that a rich country like Canada is leaving these children in such conditions.

What measures does the government intend to take to eliminate poverty in Canada?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the New Democrats do not recognize the great work Canadians have done and that this government has done lifting over 225,000 children out of poverty.

We have the lowest level of poverty in our history. It is because we are doing things like cutting the GST by two points. We have introduced the universal childcare benefit, which will give families over $1,900 in benefits, which is direct money in their pockets. A single mom with two kids under the age of six will be receiving $3,800 in cash benefits.

The NDP would take that away and put it in the hands of the bureaucracy.

Child Care

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised 125,000 day care spaces. After nine years in power, it is pretty easy to sum up the results. Not a single spot has been created—zero, zilch, nada.

While the Conservatives are proposing regressive income-splitting policies that are directed at a tiny fraction of Canadians, families are having a hard time making ends meet.

How does the government plan on helping families who are still waiting for a day care spot?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I want the New Democrats to know this, and we have said this before: We have increased transfer payments to the provinces. The provinces, since we have come into government, have created 216,000 daycare spaces.

Here is the difference between us and them. We believe parents need more than just nine-to-five, full-time-work daycare spaces. Parents need flexibility for those who work part-time or when one parent decides to stay home. That is why our plan gives funds directly to parents—the universal childcare benefit, the expansion, the increase—because we trust them to make the decisions they need for their daycare.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, around $6 a day is not going to be much help to working parents paying as much as $90 a day for child care. While the Conservatives hand out tax cuts to the wealthiest families, the majority of families are falling further and further behind. Child care is putting an enormous strain on family budgets, leaving parents faced with difficult choices, but the Conservatives have failed in their promise to deliver 125,000 new spaces.

Why have Conservatives abandoned hard-working Canadian families?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, here is what the NDP plan would do. It would cost $5 million, it would help less than 10% of Canadian families, it would do nothing for rural Canadian families, it would do nothing for families that need evening child care, it would do nothing for those families in which one family member decides to stay at home. We know the NDP will take away the universal child care benefit, given the chance. We are keeping it, we are increasing it, we are expanding it to include older children, and we are including the family tax credit.

Again, the difference between us and them is we want money in families' pockets; they want it in big bureaucracies that do nothing to help Canadian families.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while Conservative tax rates for wealthy families are getting bad reviews from economists, former finance ministers, and ordinary Canadians alike, the NDP's plan for affordable universal child care at no more than $15 a day has now been endorsed by the legislature of Canada's largest province. Canadians want to see their federal government become an active partner in making child care more affordable.

Why will the minister not adopt the NDP plan for universal, quality, affordable child care?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I think we just saw in Whitby—Oshawa what Canadians think of the NDP's universal child care plan.

Here's the issue. It is not a universal child care plan because their plan does not help a mom who is working part time and has private daycare or a grandmother helping to look after her child. Their plan only helps less than 10% of Canadian families. It does nothing for rural Canadians.

Our plan is simple. It means we trust parents. We give them the funds. It helps them make decisions that are best for their families in terms of their career choices, their work, and their child care.

Employment Insurance

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about child poverty, but there are also parents who are living in poverty. Take, for example, seasonal workers who, year after year, have to face waiting periods and seasonal gaps, in addition to receiving a maximum of 55% of their insurable earnings, if they even qualify after the Conservative reforms.

Instead of funnelling workers' contributions into a program that will not create any jobs, why is the government not improving employment insurance in order to reduce poverty, including child poverty?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, the changes that we have made to EI have not at all impacted the way people can qualify for EI.

However, what we have done is create over 1.2 million net new jobs. The unemployment rate is at the lowest since 2008. In terms of poverty, we believe the fundamental best answer for poverty is a good job, and that is why we are improving skills and creating jobs.

In addition to that, we are very proud of expanding and increasing the universal child care benefit. That $100 cheque that parents get for every child increased to $160 and, in addition, there is another $60 for their kids over six years old.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we actually believe in reducing poverty, not increasing it. That is the difference between the two.

The finance minister has been benched all week, but he forgot to mention to his $800-a-plate Bay Street lunch crowd that the economic update shows that his supposed budget surplus is actually based entirely on surpluses in the EI account. Instead of helping the unemployed, the minister has decided to raid EI funds to cover the cost of his income-splitting scheme and pad his budget.

Why is the minister balancing his budget and giving tax cuts to the wealthy few on the backs of unemployed Canadians?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to present to Canadians our economic and fiscal plan, which shows how well Canada is doing in a fragile world. We are doing better than other countries. Our economy is growing better. Our 1.2 million new jobs is better. We have half the debt-to-GDP ratio of the G7. We have a AAA rating. Next year, we will have a surplus. We have already been able to give four million Canadian families tax breaks, tax breaks that they need. Also, 780,000 small businesses will—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Guelph.

Veterans Affairs

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives robbed our brave veterans when they cut over $1 billion instead of funding vital programs and services. They spent $750 million in self-serving ads and are cynically trying to balance the budget on the backs of veterans suffering from PTSD.

Veterans are waiting eight months for assistance. Veterans are travelling hours to see a case worker because Conservatives closed nine Veterans Affairs offices.

Why do the Conservatives pretend to support our veterans when the facts clearly show that they abandoned them in their time of need?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. All governments always ensure statutory funding is fully funded to ensure there is no shortfall. This is normal practice in all governments.

We have absolutely no lessons to be learned from the Liberal Party. All Canadians remember it was under the Liberal government that our brave men and women suffered a decade of darkness. Our government has a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canadian veterans, and we will continue to do that.

National Defence

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about a decade of delay and deception by the current government. Since 2006, the Conservatives have spent $750 million on partisan advertising. Meanwhile, they have cut the defence budget to the point that we hardly even having a functioning navy, as we heard at the defence committee on Tuesday.

The reality is that a total of $14 billion has been either cut or announced and then clawed back from defence budgets.

Why do the Conservatives believe that hundreds of millions of dollars in partisan advertising is more important than providing brave men and women in uniform with the basic equipment that they require?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, first, I make this promise to the House. We will never go back to the way things were under the Liberals, when our military was completely ignored.

I would point out to the hon. member that if she reads the supplementary estimates, she will see that $900 million has been added to make it $19.5 billion. This is far more than was ever allotted under the Liberal Party, and it is because we support the men and women in uniform in our Canadian military.

The Budget

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' so-called job credit would cost more than half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money, yet the finance minister told committee that the government has not done any economic analysis of it.

Yesterday, when I asked the finance minister why, he said, “...we don't do analysis on every expenditure.”

If a half-billion-dollar expenditure does not require analysis, exactly how much taxpayer money do the Conservatives have to spend before they do their homework?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals really have no shame. When they were in power, they raided the EI fund of $60 billion and used it as a political slush fund. What we are doing is providing benefits to 780,000 small businesses, 90% of all businesses. They will benefit. They will create jobs. It will be fair for them and good for the economy.