Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance and Conflict of Interest Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Mr. Speaker, we ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Child Care

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue my concern that the cost of child care in this country is punitive for families and detrimental to women's economic justice in this country. Fees are more than $1,200 a month in Toronto. For my little sister, the cost of child care is more than the cost of rent, $1,400 in Vancouver.

This past week, the OECD was here on Parliament Hill investigating Canada's commitment to its feminist agenda and its gender lens on its policies and budget processes. The OECD has observed that:

Affordability and quality in childcare overall in Canada is still an issue, forcing many women to drop out of the labour market or reduce their working hours during childrearing years. This affects women's earning levels: full-time employed women in Canada earn on average 19% less than men.

That was reflected also by a study that the OECD did of Canadian families. The report found that families in Canada spend almost one-quarter of their income on child care, a ratio that is much higher than in other parts of the world. It found that Canada is among the most expensive for child care among its 35 members. This was reinforced for me in a meeting last week in the riding with James Brierley, who is the B.C. young worker coordinator for the Public Service Alliance of Canada. He said:

Monies currently allocated in the 2017 federal budget are not sufficient and as we both know, a national universal childcare system that provides affordable, quality childcare to all families in Canada and to pay Early Childhood Educators a living wage will take increased federal funding.

Mr. Brierley noted his own personal story. He said:

With another child due in January these costs are set to rise to $1770 per month for 2 children. I have had to discuss with my wife if we can afford the family we always wanted thanks to a system that commoditizes childcare in the market environment. As a family that works decent government jobs with a household income of over $120,000 per year this was not something I anticipated to be an issue...over 55% of our household income will be allocated to childcare and housing costs....

When will we have a childcare system that will be the envy of other countries as the liberal government is so proud to say that Canada is the envy of the world. BC numbers close to the top for child poverty. Its time for this federal government to take a stand on childcare and stand up for working Canadians!!

This lines up also with a TD Bank study saying that, “investing in early [childhood] education programs [would] help Canada address the major economic threats [it's] facing over the coming decades”, and that the program could pay for itself.

Therefore, I ask the government this once again. When will it heed the advice of the OECD, the TD Bank, and families across the country and invest what the IMF says, that if it puts in $8 billion a year, the program would pay for itself in taxation and additional economic activity as well as being a just thing for families and women in our country?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for raising this important issue in the House, and focusing on child care. It is a critical issue for many Canadians across the country.

We know that child care is important. In fact, we understand that many families in this country lack affordable, high-quality, regulated child care and we know that this forces many families into making hard choices. Some parents are forced to stay at home because they simply cannot afford to pay for child care. Others are working more than one job to make ends meet.

Too many families have to make difficult choices because of the lack of quality, affordable child care. Some parents have to give up their careers because they cannot afford to pay for child care, while others have to work more than one job to make ends meet.

No one should have to make these tough choices, and our government is committed to making sure that Canadians have to make them less and less.

Our government recognizes that quality child care and early learning support during early years is critical to a child's social, emotional, and cognitive development, and participation in society later on. This is why in our first budget a year ago, in 2016, our government proposed to invest $500 million immediately to early learning and child care, including $100 million specifically targeted to indigenous early learning and child care, which will be led, designed, and delivered by indigenous communities.

However, that was just a start. This year, in budget 2017, we proposed and invested an additional $7 billion over 10 years to support and create more high-quality, flexible, inclusive, and affordable child care right across the country, and we are making it happen. In fact, on June 12, the federal government, along with provincial and territorial partners, and the ministers responsible for early learning and child care across the country, announced a multilateral early learning child care framework, and that has been put into place. This new framework sets the foundation for governments to work towards the long-shared goal of making sure that children, no matter where they are across Canada, can experience an enriching environment of quality learning and early child care.

We have done more than that, though. Since then, three provinces and one territory have entered into three bilateral agreements. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue to work with the remaining provincial and territorial partners, with a total of $1.2 billion to be allocated, addressing each jurisdiction's unique early learning and child care needs based on the systems that are present in different regions and provinces across this country. We will develop an action plan, together with the provinces and territories, to track progress and ensure that low and middle-income families increasingly have more access to affordable child care. The framework will complement the development of a separate indigenous early learning and child care framework between our government and indigenous partners, which will reflect the unique cultural needs of Métis nation, Inuit, and first nation children right across the country.

We are also investing another $95 million to close the data gap to make sure we have accurate assessments. That is not just in terms of what we are doing across the country to make sure we set new standards and achieve those new standards, but we will be tracking that progress through the life of the agreements we have signed.

We are also investing $100 million into early learning and child care innovation, so that we can find new ways to support children as they move through the early years, to make sure it is not just child minding but child care and learning development that take place. We are working closely with provinces and territories right across this country to make sure that Canadians and children in this country get the support they need, and we will continue to work with the parties opposite to make sure we get those programs delivered.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the concern, given the tremendous backlog and the evidence we have, is that we know how much this harms the economic well-being for women, and how ultimately this harms the economy.

The International Monetary Fund recommended an expenditure of $8 billion a year on child care, which would be good for the economy. Through increased workforce participation and taxation, it would pay for itself. However, the Library of Parliament has calculated that the current government at this point has only committed 8.8% of that funding, which is a 91.2% funding shortfall compared to what the IMF recommended that this country spend.

Budget 2017 does not allocate funding for any new child care spaces until 2018-19. However, as the member said, with two provinces, British Columbia and Alberta, being ready to go with construction of new child care spaces and supporting child care workers, we need a government that is willing to make the significant investment early on to create those new spaces, to get women to work, and to get child care workers the secured spending.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would know that one of the challenges we face as a federal government is that when we put new dollars into a program, quite often provinces, and the NDP in Alberta is a fine example, take money out the back door, so we do not end up increasing expenditures on child care. Therefore, we need to sign comprehensive agreements with the provinces before the dollars can roll. We have done that now, which is why this program is going to add, as I said, an additional $7 billion into the day care system over the next few years.

The member opposite cites studies that say the national spending levels should be a certain amount, and then assumes that the federal government should be 100% responsible for it. As we know, under the Constitution, under the service delivery model we have in this country, the $7 billion that we put in, or the 9% that the member references, is only part of the national expenditure. She has identified the federal government's expenditure, but the provinces and cities also contribute to that, which gets us much closer to the amount. The member should calculate that as she does the addition.

However, if the member opposite, and particularly the NDP, were serious about child care, my question to them would be this. Why, when we had a national child care agreement fully funded with all of the provinces, moving towards a universal system of accessible, regulated child care and early learning, would they have defeated the government at the cusp of that coming into existence? If they really cared about children, why would they not have delayed that vote by a matter of two weeks, which is all it would have taken, and we would have had 10 years of solid investment and a solid program across the country?

They put their electoral fortunes ahead of the plight of children, so I will not be lectured to by the New Democrats.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the latest data available from the RCMP shows that by the end of September, a total of 15,102 individuals have been apprehended following an irregular crossing and have claimed asylum in Canada, with 13,626 occurring in the province of Quebec.

After months and months of my urging the government to take action and make funds available to the RCMP, the CBSA, the IRCC, and the IRB, we learned that during the joint briefing session on asylum crossings, the government had provided IRCC, “No additional dollars. The dollars are with the existing programs.” For the IRB, “There has been no new funding from a year ago.”

When I rose in May to ask my question of the Prime Minister regarding his empty promises around the lack of staffing and resources for the IRB, the IRB's caseload backlog was increasing by 1,000 cases per month. We learned this month that the lack of resources and staffing, combined with the continued influx of asylum seekers to Canada, has caused this backlog to grow by roughly 1,400 cases per month.

The deputy chairperson of the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB was clear. She said, “unless you put more resources to this problem, then it takes longer time to schedule so there will be longer wait times.” When asked what she meant by resources, she said, “It is a dollar issue, and it is a combination, obviously, of members, hearing rooms, and staff.” The deputy chairperson has acknowledged this, the minister has acknowledged this, and the parliamentary secretary has acknowledged this, but still no new funding is being made available and the board member seats remain vacant.

The IRB is key to the Canadian asylum system's integrity. Whether the organization is at arms length from the government or not, it relies on government funding. Government inaction is undermining the system. Last week, the media reported statistics on the irregular crossing asylum claims that has managed to be heard so far, and this result paints a very different picture than what the government has been saying.

There have been 592 claims finalized between March and September, and 408 have been accepted. That is a 69% acceptance rate. That is higher than any asylum claim method in 2016.

The government has continued to say that the United States remains a safe country to claim asylum. At committee, the minister refused to discuss the safe third country agreement in the context of a single claim that I questioned him on that was rejected in the United States and approved here. However, now we know higher than two out of three of these similar cases are being approved.

When will the government provide the resources that the IRB needs to maintain the integrity of our system, and when will it finally recognize what everyone else is seeing? Policy changes and rhetoric in the United States have changed things on the ground. People do not feel safe and are coming to Canada.

When will the government recognize that and suspend the safe third country agreement?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue here this evening, and thanks to my colleague from Vancouver East for her questions.

Canada's asylum system is highly regarded around the world. It is considered a fair, safe, and effective model. We are working closely with our partners, the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, and the Immigration and Refugee Board, in order to make our system even more effective.

Any individual in need of protection, regardless of their country of origin, is entitled to a full, fact-based hearing before the board, an independent quasi-judiciary body that processes all asylum claims fairly.

The board decides who is a convention refugee or a person in need of Canada's protection after examining the merits of every refugee claim, based on the facts of each claim submitted and in compliance with Canada's immigration laws.

In addition to working closely with the board and our security partners, the government is committed to ensuring that protecting refugees remains at the core of its asylum policies.

I assure my colleague that the government is concerned about the backlogs and is working to resolve the situation. For example, the IRB recently announced initiatives to reduce the backlog and expedite application processing. The government is currently conducting an independent review of the IRB.

I knew that my colleague would probably ask a question about the safe third country agreement. I would like to again quote the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Canada. I know the member does not like it when we quote that person, but I will do it anyway. He said:

I really think that the conditions which prevailed at the time of the drafting and adoption of the safe third country agreement in 2004 are the same as [they are today], and...it will be difficult to change the policy...[that is] seen as a good co-operation, a good responsibility-sharing between two...systems [that have] the same values and the same procedural guarantees. As far as the asylum system is concerned in the United States, legally speaking, we have not seen a change.

This is from the High Commissioner for Refugees. Again, I am surprised to hear the member opposite questioning this person's expertise on the issue of the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement.

Again, we are sparing no effort to make this system as efficient as possible, and we anticipate making further improvements to ensure it continues to garner respect around the world.

We made a commitment to Canadians to make our asylum system fair, safe, and efficient, and we are going to deliver on that commitment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. So far, two out of three asylum claims made in Canada have been accepted. They have been rejected in the United States and have now been accepted here. That is astounding. Due to the government's inaction, that is two out of three applicants who are being forced to cross through irregular crossings, risking their lives and their safety, and putting pressure and stress on the border communities. That is completely unnecessary.

With respect to the IRB, my issue is not about whether it is doing a good job; it is. What it needs is more resources from the government so it can do its job as well. Right now we know it has a huge caseload. We are seeing an increase in the backlog to the tune of 1,400 cases a month. That is astounding. With the inaction of the government, that would mean the IRB would have to create legacy cases 2.0. We already have legacy cases right now, and the government has just woke up to it after many years. The lives of people are in limbo without the government supporting the IRB with resources. That is not acceptable.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I will reiterate that Canada's asylum system is highly respected around the world as a fair, safe, and efficient model.

We are working closely with all of our partners to make this system even more efficient. An independent review of the board is currently under way, as I said earlier. I am a little surprised by some of the things my colleague is saying, given that she received just over six hours of briefings on this issue in committee. These briefings was given by departmental officials, representatives of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and even two ministers, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Public Safety. The information we received during these briefings was vital for better understanding the situation. We were able to see that the board and its partners are doing an excellent job. We are going to continue improving the asylum system and the other components of the immigration system.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here as the last speaker at the adjournment proceedings tonight.

I am rising on a question I put to the minister back on May 15 about the defence policy review. At that time, we were waiting and waiting for the defence policy review, which was supposed to be out before Christmas. It finally showed up early in the summer. The interesting thing is that everyone got to see it before parliamentarians. The minister took it down to Washington and showed it to President Trump, and he never actually let us see it. That speaks to the transparency of the Liberal government.

Do members remember sunny ways and that the government was going to be open and transparent and would allow us to see everything? When we requested a briefing on what was going to be in the defence policy report, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, when it came out, we thought we would get some notice and a couple of hours' briefing to tell us what was in there and how it would be announced to Canadians.

Opposition critics from the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc were told to show up at National Defence for our briefing. We were put in a secure room and had all our devices taken away, of course, which we thought would be fine, because we were going to be presented with the documents and told what was in them. However, we were presented with the documents and given one hour to read through the defence policy, the backgrounders, the press releases, and all the statements by the government ministers involved. We had one hour, and then we were supposed to go out and be able to deal with the media.

To me, that was a failure of being transparent and of working with good will with other parliamentarians and other parties to ensure that we were in a position to actually talk about the defence policy.

After the defence policy was announced, it proved the fact that Canadians do not trust the Liberal government. We have already lived through the decade of darkness. We have already seen the Liberal government take $12 billion in funding away from our troops in two consecutive budgets. It had thrown a lot of procurement into disarray. We saw it pull our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS. The Liberals did not want to have a combat mission, unfortunately, in Operation Impact. It took forever, dragging its feet, in renewing our Operation Unifier mission in Ukraine.

In the defence policy review the government did, it did not talk extensively about the threats Canada is facing, along with our allies, and because of that, it failed to look at North Korea. It failed to even consider what is happening there today and why we need to be part of a ballistic missile defence program under NORAD.

I am sure the parliamentary secretary is going to get up and say, “Canada is back”. However, if members read the news today, it showed that while the government said it was going to bring in 600 peacekeepers and 150 police officers to go on peacekeeping missions, today we have the smallest UN peacekeeping mission in the history of this country. We have only 88 peacekeepers assigned to UN peacekeeping missions.

That is a failure of the government in not being able to deliver on any of its promises when it comes to our military. The military is not getting the kit it needs on time. All the spending the government has announced has been punted down the road for over two years, until after the next election. That will only happen if there is a budget there to actually do it.

The political will of the government is in question. Canadians and our troops do not trust the Liberals.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to talk about a policy that has been warmly welcomed by Canadian Armed Forces members.

On June 7, the minister announced the government's new defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. Our new policy offers a new vision and a new approach to defence. It is based on an in-depth analysis of the broadest public consultations of the past 20 years about Canada's defence policy.

Throughout the consultation period, Canadians from all walks of life submitted over 20,000 proposals through the online consultation portal. Departmental officials and parliamentarians held round tables and meetings with defence experts, industry representatives, academics, and first nations leaders. Over 50 parliamentarians organized consultations in their communities. We even consulted beyond our borders to include many of our allies and partners.

The minister and other Department of National Defence officials met with their counterparts from around the world. The minister also engaged in discussions in multilateral forums such as NATO and during the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in 2016.

Given that several of our allies had recently completed reviews of their own defence policies, it was crucial for us to connect with them to discuss our insights and lessons learned. Their knowledge, observations, and ideas were carefully considered, and our new policy is the culmination of everything we heard.

I would like to take a moment to thank all of those who held consultations in their ridings and regions to support the defence policy review. I would also like to acknowledge the members of the House and Senate committees for the work they did in studying defence issues.

The depth and breadth of the defence policy review, combined with such a high degree of consultation, undeniably enhanced the results and the credibility of the process. We are proud of the defence policy, which is entitled “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. In a nutshell, this policy seeks to balance priorities in an ever-changing reality, invest in our military, and make sure our soldiers and their families are well supported. It offers clear direction on Canadian defence priorities over a 20-year horizon and comes with the resources required to effectively deliver upon them.

Canada needs an agile and flexible military force that can act decisively and get results across the full spectrum of operations. To that end, the new defence policy entitled, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, establishes eight key missions for the Canadian Armed Forces from assisting civilian authorities in disasters and emergencies, to deterring and defending against military threats.

The Canadian Armed Forces will also work with our allies and partners, including the United Nations, NATO and NORAD, to contribute to global stability. In order to follow through on our commitments, annual military spending will increase over the next 10 years, going from $18.9 billion to $32.7 billion annually. The size of the regular force will grow by 3,500 members, and the reserve force will be increased by 1,500.

We will also invest to grow, maintain, and upgrade Canadian Armed Forces capabilities. We will continue to engage Canadians and parliamentarians as we follow through on our commitments.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the parliamentary secretary talked about consultations. We held consultations right across this country. Hundreds of submissions came in from concerned citizens. One thing that we do have in common is that our troops need to be front and centre in defence policy, and that is what we heard and what the minister definitely heard as well in Canada's defence policy, strong, secure, and engaged.

Do we trust the Liberals? That is what it comes down to. They are talking $32 billion and we know that is with creative accounting. They are playing a shell game over there. They will take the money from Foreign Affairs, the Coast Guard, and even Veterans Affairs, and are pushing it into National Defence.

When the Liberals were in power before it was a decade of darkness. They sent our troops into Afghanistan wearing green camouflage in the desert. Since the Liberals have been government, they have taken danger pay from our troops that were in the fight against ISIS in Operation Impact. They had to return that money after being embarrassed by the opposition here in Parliament.

Our government proved itself. We bought new aircraft for our air force, new tanks, new LAVs for our army, and started the national shipbuilding program, which is now in disarray under the Liberals.

We will continue to stand up for our troops. I just wish the Liberals would do it as well.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that our colleague shares our interest in this policy.

During our consultations, Canadians told us one thing, and that is that they want us to look after our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families. That concern is at the core of this policy. We are looking after them, we are ensuring their well-being, we are helping with the transition to civilian life, we are providing training, and we are ensuring that they have the equipment needed to guarantee the safety and security of Canada and North America and meet our international commitments. That is why we will give them the equipment they need.

We announced the procurement of fighter jets and frigates as part of that policy. All those procurement items were included in the budget and confirmed by five consulting firms, which told us that those commitments will be guaranteed. That is why the people of the Canadian Armed Forces and their chief of staff are so excited about this defence policy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.)