Jason Kenney

[Employment, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, the proposed grant would have cost approximately $45,000 in tax dollars for every job created.

I know that to the New Democrats there is no limit in the largesse with which they would have government spend tax dollars. We are committed to creating jobs and assisting youth at risk, which is why we invest enormously in skills development in that area. However, there has to be a practical limit. I know the New Democrats would be happy to spend $80,000 or $120,000, but we think that spending $45,000 in tax dollars to create one job is unreasonable and unjustifiable.

[Government Communications, November 24th, 2014]

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.

[Government Communications, November 24th, 2014]

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.

[Government Communications, November 24th, 2014]

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.

[Taxation, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed but not surprised to hear the Liberal candidate in Banff say that he was opposed to tax cuts for families because it is “handing people money for what? Arguably nothing.” That is an echo of the Liberals saying that parents would spend money on “beer and popcorn”.

We believe that parents of kids will invest in their children, not in “beer and popcorn”, not in nothing. This is why the Liberals were opposed to the GST cut, it is why they want to take back the choice in child care benefit, it is why they want to eliminate the family tax cut. It is because they think Liberals know how to spend money better than families. We—

[Employment Insurance, November 19th, 2014]

Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. That is, in part, why we have legislation before the House in the budget implementation act, which we hope the NDP will support. This would allow us to hire up to an additional 22 decision-makers at the tribunal.

I am very pleased to highlight that the faster informal reconsideration process for refused EI applications means a 90% reduction in the caseload for EI, meaning we can reallocate those decision-makers over to the income security division. This means we will get at that backlog of cases so we can provide the kind of service that Canadians expect and deserve.

[Employment Insurance, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, again, in fact our ministry did take action by introducing a new approach toward reconsideration of EI refusals. That now happens quickly, by a public servant who, remarkably, actually picks up a phone and calls the person who has asked for a reconsideration, and sorts it out, often getting additional documentation.

This means that we are now resolving about 90% of those refusals at a reconsideration stage in a matter of weeks, without having to go through a lengthy multi-month quasi-judicial process.

In terms of the CPP cases before the tribunal, we are adding additional decision-makers and taking other administrative measures to speed up the process.

[Employment Insurance, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to my department's efficiency, we have seen a 90% decrease in employment insurance appeals. That means that almost 90% of cases are handled by public servants, without appeal. The service is quicker.

In the case of Quebeckers, the Government of Quebec has its own appeal process for benefits paid by the Quebec pension plan, which does not fall under the Social Security Tribunal.

[Poverty, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we will. However, unlike the NDP, we will take more than just rhetorical measures. We are taking real, concrete action. This is the government that cut the GST by two points while maintaining the low-income GST rebate at 7%, meaning a $1.1 billion benefit for low-income families.

This is the government that has lifted a million low-income families off the tax rolls altogether. This is the government that introduced the universal child care benefit, which provides now and next year over $1,900 for each family. That means a single mom with two kids under the age of six will be receiving $3,800 in cash benefit that the NDP would take away.

[Poverty, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we will. We have already done so.

While we all continue to hope for the elimination of child poverty one day, the NDP refuses to recognize that there has been progress made. In fact, the low-income rate for children has declined significantly from a peak of over 18% under the Liberal government to 8.5% currently, with over 700,000 fewer Canadian children living in low-income families.

This is in part because of the enormous benefits created by the government for low-income families, which led UNICEF recently to say that if Canada was faring better than other western countries in this regard, it was due to measures that were favourable to families, like tax credits, fiscal measures and benefits that were maintained or put in place to counter the effects of the global crisis.