Debates of Nov. 24th, 2014

National Defence

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP predicted during the initial debate on the mission to Iraq, this weekend, the Minister of Justice indicated that the government is considering air strikes in Syria. That poses a number of problems, particularly if it involves associating with Bashar al-Assad and asking his permission.

The Conservatives are also telling us that such air strikes should not be interpreted as an attack on the Syrian government.

Can the minister confirm that Canada is considering air strikes in Syria?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is focused on the current mission that the Canadian men and women in uniform are conducting. That includes air strikes against ISIL in Iraq, and soldiers performing an advise and assist function in and about Erbil.

This is the extent of Canada's mission, and all Canadians should be tremendously proud of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear here that the Conservatives explicitly left the door open to bombing Syria and the NDP explicitly opposed that. Now, the government is considering expanding Canada's aerial strikes into Syria at Bashar al-Assad's behest. They have gone from “Assad must go” to “We will go with Assad's permission”.

Will the minister confirm that he is seeking Assad's permission for air strikes in Syria?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the men and women of our armed forces are very focused on their current mission, which is twofold: to provide support and advice and assist on the ground around Erbil and, of course, the air mission.

We are also working on things like ensuring that we cut off financing. We are also working on the humanitarian side. We are also working to ensure that there is inclusive government with an inclusive program, and we are making good progress on all of those.

Poverty

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

Mr. Speaker, 21% of our children are living in poverty. That is one in five children.

Aboriginal and immigrant children are disproportionately affected. We are talking about our country's future, the leaders of tomorrow, who are growing up in unsuitable conditions.

Will the Conservatives listen to UNICEF's recommendations and set goals to ensure that children are not the victims of their poor budget choices?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have taken real action when it comes to reducing poverty. In fact, the action that we have taken has been recognized by UNICEF. It recognized that during the depths of the recession, we lifted 180,000 children out of poverty.

Let me tell the House what David Morley, president and CEO of UNICEF Canada, said. He said that Canada is faring better than other western countries, due to measures that are favourable to families, like tax credits, fiscal measures, and benefits that have been maintained or put in place to counter the effects of the global crisis.

Those are measures we put into place that are actually having an effect. We will not listen to the NDP. We will continue—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not see what the Conservatives have to be happy about right now. We rank 20th among the 41 richest countries in the world. A total of 21% of our children are living in poverty, and UNICEF has indicated that conditions are even worse for the most disadvantaged. That is the record of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Is the minister telling us that she thinks these statistics are acceptable?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is unbelievable is the NDP. Here are the facts. There are nearly 1.4 million fewer Canadians living in poverty under this government and this Prime Minister than under the Liberals and any other government. Our policies have lifted 225,000 children out of poverty. I could go on with the evidence-based effects that our policies are having.

They can keep asking questions. We will keep delivering results for Canadian children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another question.

One in five Canadian children lives in poverty today and the minister thinks that is reason for self-congratulation. Twenty-five years ago today, the House made a solemn commitment to Canada's children that they would not have to grow up in poverty. However, 25 years later, here are the facts: child poverty levels have increased significantly from 13% in 1989 to 21% today.

Instead of constantly giving tax breaks to the wealthy in this country who really do not need them, why will the Conservative government not introduce a real plan to eliminate child poverty?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is why will the NDP not support measures that actually lift children and families out of poverty? We are not saying this. Organizations like UNICEF are saying it. It is things like our universal child care benefit, which we introduced and the New Democrats said was a slap in the face to Canadian families. What do New Democrats think of the universal child care benefit? They would take it away.

Not only have we introduced it, we are also going to increase it, we are going to expand it. We will look at the facts, we will depend on evidence. We will not listen to the NDP because we know that all they want to do is to create big bureaucracies and increase taxes on Canadian families.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives pat themselves on their backs while more than a million children in Canada live in poverty. This is no time for self-congratulations by them.

Food bank rates are at a record level and nearly 4 out of 10 who attend food banks are children. The number of kids who wake up in homeless shelters is rising, not falling, under the Conservatives, and far too often first nation children live in conditions that are on par with some of the poorest countries on the planet.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Twenty-five years after Ed Broadbent brought a motion into the House of Commons to end child poverty, will he dump his $3 billion income-splitting scheme and finally do something to end poverty in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, here is what Canadian families know. They know that under our government they have more money in their pockets. Since we took office, there are 225,000 fewer children in poverty. The average Canadian family has an additional $3,400 in their pocket. With our universal child care benefit increase and expansion, as well as our family tax cut, there will be an average of $1,200 more in the pockets of Canadian families.

We know what the NDP plan is, a $5 billion plan that will help less than 10% of Canadian families, do nothing for rural families, and do nothing for families who are working part time. So we will not listen to its ideology. We will deliver results.

Ethics

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really have no respect for the work federal public servants do. It is unbelievable that they recently sent a mass email asking public servants to retweet Conservative propaganda and their latest election slogan. Is that not partisan?

Why do the Conservatives not let public servants do their jobs and serve Canadians instead of trying to embroil them in their electioneering?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our tax cuts for Canadian families. We have reduced their tax burden by $3,500 a year.

With the reforms recently announced by the Prime Minister, the average Canadian family will have an additional $1,200 a year and all families with children under 18 years of age will benefit from these tax cuts and receive these new family benefits. We obviously have to inform Canadians.

Government Communications

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is the king of false advertising, having blown over $100 million on partisan promotion. We now understand that it is telling civil servants to get on Twitter to act as cheerleaders for the Conservatives' dubious income-splitting scheme for the rich.

The fact is, civil servants are supposed to act in a non-partisan fashion. Why will the Conservatives not leave our civil servants alone so they can do the jobs that Canadians hired them for, border security, scientific research, helping seniors, rather than acting as Twitter trolls for the Conservative Party?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that Canadians are aware of the availability of the new expanded universal child care benefit, for which they should apply. If they have children between the ages of 7 and 18, they can now receive a brand new benefit of $60 a month per child. That is $720 a year. In addition, newborns to the age of 6 can now receive a universal child care benefit in the order of $160 a month. That is $1,920 a year.

These are very significant benefits. We want to make sure that Canadians are aware of and apply for these benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, if they cannot answer a question in Parliament, how the heck are they going to explain it on Twitter?

We are talking about the misuse of the public service by the Conservative Party. This has not been approved by Parliament and it will benefit only the super rich.

Why does the government not do what the civil servants should be doing? Leave them alone to do the job that Canadians are paying for, rather than having to act as “pom pom Twitterati” for the government and the minister?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, again, the member demonstrates why he is not taken very seriously. He does not even bother to become even vaguely acquainted with the facts, which are that two-thirds of the beneficiaries of this package will be modest and low-income families.

He refers to the super rich. Does he think that single moms with a couple of kids living below the poverty line are super rich? In fact, two such children under the age of 6 would benefit to the amount of over $3,800, which, for a single mom with two kids, is an awful lot of money.

Health

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 95 people are living today with severe disability due to thalidomide. They need government support now. Our drug approval system failed these Canadians once. The Minister of Health has a responsibility to do what is just and compassionate so they are able to live their lives with dignity, optimum functioning, and free from pain.

Will the minister do the right thing?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this horrible event from the sixties reminds us of how seriously we need to take drug safety. We now have one of the safest drug systems in the world. Recently, we strengthened it even further with the passage of Vanessa's law.

I would tell the member that we are happy to review any policy proposals and add to earlier conversations with Health Canada officials this year.

Justice

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Louis LeBel is about to retire from the Supreme Court, but it appears that no appointment process has been put in place, no published protocol of consultation, no selection panel, no parliamentary review, no public engagement, no transparency and no accountability. Yet in 2004 Conservative members of the justice committee, including the now Minister of Justice himself, recommended “...there must be a public review of a short list of nominees before a parliamentary committee”.

Does the minister stand by his own recommendation for a public, parliamentary, accountable, transparent process?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know full well that it was in fact our government that put in place the most-inclusive, most-consultative process that we have ever seen in the history of Canada when it comes to Supreme Court judges. That was not the case when he held the office that I currently occupy.

I can promise the hon. member that we will be consulting broadly with prominent members of the bar association, the judiciary, and, of course, the elected members of the Government of Quebec. I note the hon. member has recently been making plans to leave this place, and we might even consider him.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations made by the Minister of Justice in 2004 concerning Supreme Court appointments could have prevented the Marc Nadon fiasco. Instead, the process was sabotaged by the Prime Minister's Office, and now the minister's recommendations and parliamentary involvement have both been abandoned.

Why this contradiction?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the opening has not actually occurred as yet, but the member, I repeat for the record, should know that we do in fact consult very broadly. We have taken the time to consult with the elected government of the Province of Quebec. We are hearing from the judiciary. We are hearing from the members of the bar, both the Canadian Bar Association and the bar from Quebec, retired judges, and retired individuals, who have much to offer.

However, let us not lose sight of the fact that the overriding criteria is legal excellence, merit, and that it is a decision for the executive branch of the government.