Debates of Nov. 5th, 2014

Social Development

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

Mr. Speaker, we are doing a lot better than that.

We created the universal child care benefit that is providing benefits to nearly 2 million Canadian families with kids. Now we are expanding it. We are expanding it to all children between the ages of 6 and 18. This means that under our plan, 4 million Canadian families with children would receive support for their child care choices.

That is 100% of families with kids under 18, unlike the multibillion dollar government-knows-best bureaucratic NDP daycare scheme that would benefit fewer than 10% of families with kids.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Prime Minister promised parents he would create precisely 125,000 child care spaces across Canada. Precisely how many of those child care spaces did Conservatives create?

I would like to give the minister a hint. The answer begins with the letter zed.

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

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. We have increased transfers to the provinces by 50%. They have created over 175,000 more child care spaces, which is in their jurisdiction.

Here is what else we are doing. Every single parent in Canada with children under the age of 18 will receive a benefit from our universal child care benefit as well as our expanded family tax credit.

We believe that parents know what is best for their children. We believe it is not a party or an ideology; it is mom and dad. That is who we trust.

Taxation

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, income splitting will not help 85% of Canadian households. Income splitting will not benefit 2.4 million two-parent families and it will not benefit any single-parent families.

How can the minister pretend income splitting is all about families when he knows full well that the vast majority of parents will get absolutely nothing?

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

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is absolute rubbish.

In fact, 1.7 million Canadian families with kids, that is nearly half of the families with kids under the age of 18, will benefit from income splitting and 100% of families, that is four million, will benefit from the total tax package and benefit package announced by the Prime Minister last week, which will deliver an average net benefit of nearly $1,200 for the average family with children. Two-thirds of those benefits will go to low- and modest-income families.

We are going to give families tax relief. We are going to help them with their kids as opposed to delivering that money through an expensive bureaucracy.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the jobs minister up, because the Prime Minister and the finance minister in the past week have not been able to say the words “income splitting” in the House. They are running from their own policy. They clearly do not want to draw attention to the fact that 85% of Canadian households get absolutely nothing from this plan.

Will the minister acknowledge that his income splitting plan will only benefit a small minority of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, it benefits an enormous number of those with children and they are who we are focused on.

I want to remind the leader of the Liberal Party of his own finance critic's commitment, the member for Kings—Hants, who said in his 2003 leadership platform that the tax system that treats single incomes and dual incomes identically should be ended in order to stop penalizing Canadian single-income families.

This is about fairness. This is about treating families as an economic unit. This is about ending discrimination against some families who make sacrifices for their kids. We support the choices of Canadian parents.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2003 our finance critic was misguided enough to be a Conservative.

It seems that the minister does not understand what I am asking—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Papineau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are spending $2 billion on an income-splitting proposal that does not apply to 85% of Canadian households.

Does the minister understand that his income-splitting plan is simply not a good idea for Canadian families?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, two-thirds of the families who will benefit from these changes will be low and modest income families.

The Liberal Party's policy is clear: it wants to take away all these tax cuts, advantages and benefits for children and families, just like it wants to take income splitting away from seniors. We are there to support Canadian families and their choice. We do not do things the way the Liberal Party does.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the minister a chance to set the record straight, because there seems to be some confusion about his reaction to the decision, and more specifically about the changes made to the interim federal health program.

The court of appeal ordered that the health program for refugee claimants be restored to what it was in 2012.

Can the minister confirm that that is indeed what he has done?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is unfortunately mistaken. We did what was necessary to comply with the court's decision, but we are disappointed and we will appeal.

We have a question for the NDP: do the New Democrats understand the real meaning of refugee? Do they really think that someone whose refugee claim was rejected, who was found to be an illegitimate claimant and who is waiting to be removed from Canada is a refugee? This person is not a refugee. Not from a legal or moral standpoint.

Our government will continue to defend the interests of taxpayers.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe what we are hearing. The NDP is not the only one saying this. The court said that the changes made to refugee health care benefits are cruel and unusual. That is not insignificant. The court said it.

It does not really matter whether the government agrees or not. We just want the government to uphold the court's ruling.

Will the minister finally respect our courts? Will he ensure that refugees, refugee protection claimants and their children will have access to proper health care?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we will uphold the court's ruling, even if we do not agree with it.

However, I have a question for the NDP. Do they respect Canadians? Twice yesterday and once again today, they said that we took health care benefits away from refugees. We did no such thing. The NDP wants to give better health care benefits than those Canadians receive to people whose refugee protection claims have been rejected or found to be fraudulent. That is shameful.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that minister's disdain for some of the most vulnerable people in our society is on full view today and it is not a pretty sight.

First, he refused to accept when the Federal Court ruled his actions were unconstitutional. Then he continued his attack by using the omnibus budget bill to sneak in changes that would take social assistance away from refugees. Now he is refusing to fully respect the court's decision on refugee health care.

What does the minister have against refugees?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

There he goes again, Mr. Speaker.

Does the member opposite have any respect either for Canadians or for the English language, because there is no case when refugees, those determined to be so by our independent Immigration and Refugee Board or by the UNHCR and then resettled to Canada, have failed to receive health care under this government, and refugees will continue to receive health care.

What New Democrats are asking for, and we really find it unbelievable, is that people whose claims were found to be false, people whose claims were found to be fraudulent, people waiting to be removed from Canada, should receive better health care than Canadians themselves.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

That is wrong, wrong and wrong, Mr. Speaker.

The Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal could not have been more clear. Conservatives' treatment of refugees was deemed inequitable, unconstitutional, and yes, causing refugees harm.

However, instead of restoring the interim federal health program, the minister is playing politics, deciding some people get it and some people do not.

Why will he not just respect the court's decision and restore health care to refugees?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, refugee health care has been in place all along. It remains in place. Even the member for Markham—Unionville gets that, as he said yesterday.

The Federal Court gets that, if the hon. member would read its decision. It understands that the issues it was pronouncing upon relate to claimants, not to those refugees whose claims have been found to be legitimate and have refugee status.

The hon. member should stand in the House, acknowledge that he has been misleading Canadians and acknowledge that he is asking for better health care for fraudulent claimants, for failed claimants and for those who are about to leave Canada. We do not think that is appropriate.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been trying to convince us that the decision to eliminate one in four jobs at CBC/Radio-Canada was made by the CBC's top executives. Seriously. How can the minister claim that CBC is independent when nine of the 12 board members are Conservative Party backers?

People are not buying it. The minister's henchmen are just doing the government's dirty work. What is more, she and her predecessors are elbow-deep in the day-to-day management of CBC. How disgusting is that?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, CBC makes its own decisions independently of the government.

Let us talk about the appointments our government made. They were made as part of a rigorous and transparent process. We try to find the most competent candidates to meet the requirements of these positions. Our government never interferes with the democratic rights of board members. It is false to suggest that we take away their votes and their right to make donations to any party they want.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, nine out of 12 is not bad.

CBC/Radio-Canada is a cultural institution that is vital to Canada, and especially to Quebec. It would even be fair to say that Radio-Canada has been one of the key instruments to the affirmation of Quebeckers. The people running it should be aware of that heritage.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives like appointing their cronies to that corporation. Nine out of 12 members of the board of directors are thugs who have been placed there to dismantle our public broadcaster and who could not care less about the impact these cuts will have on our heritage. Will the minister ever acknowledge this reality? Her government is responsible for this mess.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely ashamed of what was just said with regards to some of the members of that board. These are volunteers who come forward to enter into a competition, which is based on merit, and they have the competencies that are required.

In fact, I will cite the competencies of one of the board members from Quebec. Pierre Gingras was the mayor for Blainville from 1993 to 2005, and he brings a vast wealth of experience in both economic development and business administration.

Shame on that member for insulting his competencies.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is shameful is what this government is doing.

CBC/Radio-Canada is the engine of television production in Montreal, and in many francophone minority communities, for instance in western Canada, it is the only news source.

The minister and her predecessors have taken control of CBC/Radio-Canada by stacking its board of directors. The minister's henchmen have begun gutting our public broadcaster. One out of every four jobs will be cut.

Why is the government attacking CBC/Radio-Canada and culture in Canada?