Jason Kenney

[Child Care, December 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have done the opposite through our significant, in fact enormous, increases in the Canada social transfer to provinces. They have been able to use part of those funds to create over 175,000 additional daycare spaces, compared to 2006.

Last month the Prime Minister announced that this government will be increasing the child care tax deduction that will provide further assistance to families using institutional child care, in addition to which, of course, the child tax benefit package will deliver, on average, $1,200 in incremental benefits to families with children in a way that respects the choices they make.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must correct what the hon. member just said because it was completely wrong.

To begin, with respect to health insurance for failed refugee claimants, meaning illegal migrants who are in the process of being deported from Canada, it is true that these people do not have legal status to remain in Canada and therefore do not have the right to obtain health insurance. That being said, they still clearly have access to the health care system, as all visitors do. Foreign students, new residents and new immigrants are not eligible for provincial health insurance until they have lived in a province for three months.

The same principle applies in the case of this bill, which proposes giving provinces the power to establish a mandatory residency period before people are able to apply for welfare. Nearly every country in Europe and the developed world has decided that an individual must be a resident for at least a few weeks before being able to access benefits such as welfare. We need to be careful when we discuss these issues. We need to consider the facts and be fair. We will not change a thing in this bill about welfare for immigrants. This is just about recognizing the provinces' ability to establish their own rules in this area.

[Social Development, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, any time there is a process where people are applying, the normal process is for those applications to be considered in the order in which they were received. Only in the sort of fantasy world of the NDP could they all be considered at the same time. That is obviously not possible in the real world.

In the real world, we are working with the tribunal to add additional decision makers to speed up the process and reduce the backlog. Of course there is the good news that there has been a 90% reduction in the number of EI appeals being filed because of a fast-track process of reconsideration by officials in my department, which is working very well for EI applicants.

[Social Development, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure, inadvertently, the member is misleading us when she suggests that this is a denial of benefits for those who apply, when in fact we are talking about individuals whose applications for benefits were rejected initially and who are then subsequently filing an appeal.

We are working with the chair of the Social Security Tribunal to accelerate the process. We have added 22 part-time decision makers. We have moved 12 decision makers from the EI section to the pension section. We are looking at additional actions necessary to speed up the process.

[Social Development, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are talking about an appeal process. Obviously, we are talking about individuals whose applications for benefits were rejected initially and who are then subsequently filing an appeal.

That being said, we are working to reduce the Social Security Tribunal's backlog of income security cases. That is why we have added 22 part-time decision makers to the tribunal and have moved 12 decision makers from the EI section to the pension section. We are going to continue working with the chair of the tribunal to speed up the process.

[Housing, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures for that specific transfer with me now, but I would be pleased to provide the hon. member with the exact information.

That being said, our government has increased its investments in affordable social housing, particularly through a very effective program to help the homeless find housing. We will continue in that direction.

[Taxation, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member himself supported income splitting in his Tory leadership platform. Second, we did listen to constructive criticism, which is why we capped the benefit for income splitting at $2,000 for families, ensuring that two-thirds of the benefits from the overall package would flow to modest- and low-income families. Third, this change is part of the universal choice in child care benefit enhancement, which will deliver benefits to 100% of families.

If benefiting more people is the criterion for supporting tax cuts, why did the Liberal Party vote against and continue to oppose the only tax cut that 100% of Canadians enjoy, which is the cut in the GST?

[Taxation, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the member for Kings—Hants does not read The New York Times, because if he did, he would have read the huge benchmark study that celebrated the fact, at least for us Canadians, that Canada's middle class has surpassed that of the United States for the first time ever and that we have the wealthiest middle class in the world.

We also have seen a significant reduction in the number of Canadians living below the low-income line. In fact, thanks to our increase in the basic personal exemption and other progressive changes, we have lifted over 1.2 million low-income Canadians off of the tax rolls altogether.

[Ethics, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that Liberal candidate, that Liberal member, and every Liberal member opposes tax fairness for families. The Liberals opposed the child care benefit. They opposed $3,800 in benefits for single moms with two kids under the age of six. They opposed tax cuts for families. They voted against the ways and means motion recently. They want to take these benefits away from families, and they do so because they believe that Liberal politicians know better how to spend money than moms and dads. We profoundly disagree on this side.

[Employment, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have that file with me at the moment. My department pays out tens of thousands of grants.

Frankly, if the member really wants to get the facts during question period, then he should let me know about his question beforehand so that I can come with the information. I will get the information from my department, and I will be very happy to share it with the hon. member.