Evidence of meeting #5 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was families.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll be sharing my time with MP Long.
Minister Qualtrough, I'll go back to you. I'm wondering if you can explain how the new Canada child benefit is going to work, in conjunction with the child disability benefit, to bring about more support for lower-income and middle-income families who are caring for disabled children.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Carla Qualtrough Liberal Delta, BC
I should start off by saying that I would defer to my colleague on the details of the Canada child benefit, but what I can say is that any more money in the hands of any parent of a child with a disability is greatly appreciated, because the cost of having a child with a disability is significant. As well, the more significant the impairment, the higher the cost.
Minister Duclos, I don't know if you have anything to add.
I apologize. It's not within my mandate, but I fully support it.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
I'm about to quote you a figure, but I'm almost certain to have it wrong.
Would any of my officials know the exact figure that applies to the benefits for handicapped children?
4:55 p.m.
A voice
We'll find out.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
The answer is that we'll find out and we'll make that known to the member. I think the entire committee would like to know that.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I thank the three ministers for coming in today. I think it's quite rare that we get three ministers to come in for a full two hours, and I really appreciate it. I know that the committee appreciates your time. I have a few questions for everybody, but I'll start with Minister Mihychuck.
Minister, in the recent budget, there is an increase in funding for the labour market development agreements and Canada job fund agreements for the purpose of enhancing investments in training for unemployed and underemployed Canadians. Would you elaborate on how you think the increases in funding will further support skills training and thus help those people gain increased access to the job market?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
MaryAnn Mihychuk Liberal Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
We're very proud to be able to provide more funding to our partners, the provinces and the territories. We share in the responsibility for training and skill development with those partners. The reason is that they know their workforce and the needs and opportunities better than a federal jurisdiction.
Not only are we in challenging economic times—although last month it was nice to see an increase of 40,000 jobs—but we have a program to finally enhance the funding for our provincial and territorial partners. For instance, in the Canada job fund agreement and Canada job grants, we are increasing that component. The LMAs are increasing by $50 million in 2016 and 2017; and the LMDAs are also getting an increase, in this case of $125 million, in this budget.
It's a start to addressing what we've seen as a shortfall and I think we're going to see on-the-ground training and opportunities for individuals, which are sorely needed.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I have another question for Minister Mihychuk.
I was quite surprised to hear my colleague opposite talk about the waiting times for service reps. I think service delivery standards were decimated under their previous government. Their government cut 600 positions from the EI process and EI call centres. So if Canadians are waiting for service reps, wouldn't you agree that the cut of 600 service reps may have had something to do with that?
As well, Minister, what's your plan to fix that?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
MaryAnn Mihychuk Liberal Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
There's no doubt at all that there have been drastic reductions and cost-saving measures to balance the budget. If those are in tune with the rapid adoption of modern initiatives or modern ways of delivering services, including chat rooms and the web service, they can be working in harmony. In this case we saw massive cuts to human resources, leaving the front line without those human representatives that many seniors require.
There are many seniors and immigrants who come to the service centres, stand in line, and aren't able to see a representative. We're very proud to be investing $73 million over two years to provide services to Canadians when and where they need them. So when they pick up the phone, there will actually be somebody there; and if they come into our service centre to see a person, there's will be somebody there. And we will enhance our call centres, so you'll be able to get through. That's our number one concern, the ability to serve Canadians.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much to the ministers for being here, I appreciate this opportunity.
I want to start by asking a question of Minister Qualtrough.
Minister, on Saturday I met a mom in my riding who has autistic children. She had a specific concern that I'd like to share with you and maybe get some feedback on.
She's had some trouble with CRA recognizing certain purchases that she's made as necessary equipment to help her children operate, especially in the area of modern technology. In her experience, the CRA has had a tendency to identify things like maybe an iPod or speech apps, which are really important to her children's participation in society, as toys. That creates a real problem for her.
Could you comment on that? I'd really appreciate it if you were open to talking to your cabinet colleagues about this and seeing if there is some way these concerns can be addressed.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Carla Qualtrough Liberal Delta, BC
First of all, yes, and thank you for the question, because you're certainly not the first one who has brought that to my attention.
As I said earlier, one of the things I'm excited about in having our consultation around accessibility legislation is my hope that a lot of the issues like this that are within federal jurisdiction and wouldn't fall squarely within the four squares of our legislation can be brought to the surface and be addressed.
One of the things we're looking at and doing now is a horizontal environmental scan across government, if you will, of programs and policies to see the language that is used and the barriers that exist, whether they're direct or indirect, to participation or to accessing the service. As for the service you're talking about, ironically, the less expensive and the more common the technology is, the more difficult it is sometimes to get that technology approved, which seems counterintuitive.
I certainly would like to hear from all of you, as we move forward and develop this language and greater common access, of examples just like that of how the government can improve our accessibility. So, thank you.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your understanding. I hope that's an area we'll all be able to work on together across party lines, because I think some of those changes definitely need to happen.
Minister Duclos, I want to ask you about income splitting. I know that perhaps we have a bit of a philosophical difference when it comes to income splitting, but I've never understood the argument against it. Income splitting is a tax cut, but it's about tax fairness. It's about the idea that if you have two families that are earning the same family income, then they should pay the same amount of tax. You can have one family that's earning $60,000 because one person is making $30,000 and the other person's making $30,000, and then you have another family that's making $60,000 because one is making $45,000 and the other is making $15,000. Under an income-splitting system both of those families pay the same amount of tax. Under a system without income splitting they don't pay the same amount of tax. It seems to me intuitive that if you have two different families with the same family income, then they should pay the same rate and the same amount of tax. Your government disagrees. By eliminating income splitting in this budget, families who make different kinds of choices, choices that are good for their families in their view, will pay more tax and a higher rate of tax. As a father of young children, and someone who represents a riding with many young families, this doesn't make any sense to me. I wouldn't ever judge the child care choices that any family makes, but I would suggest that families should pay the same rate of tax if they earn the same income. I'd appreciate your comments on that.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
Let me open parenthetically regarding my earlier answer. I should have known the answer by heart. The child disability benefit remains up to a maximum of $2,730. That's the precise number, which I didn't remember by heart. The answer was faster than I thought it would be.
Now regarding income splitting, there are three reasons that militate against income-splitting measures. The first reason is simplicity. We're assisting families with the Canada child benefit in a very simple manner: it's a single non-taxable transfer every month. A family's transparency and simplicity is greatly enhanced through this particular measure. The second reason—and I think we all agree on this—is that it's those families that need it most that should receive support from the Canadian government. Our resources, as I said earlier, are always going to be limited. We need to invest in those families that need our support most, and income splitting doesn't do that. The third reason is that we are in a modern economy in which the two spouses often work. Incoming splitting will impose on the spouse with a lower income the same marginal tax rate faced by the spouse with the higher income. Nowadays the spouse with the lowest income generally is the woman. Income splitting discourages labour force participation on the part of those lower income spouses. It's the women that typically are lower paid. Since income splitting imposes the same marginal tax rate on the same people in the couple, we think that's not the way the tax system should operate.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I'll be sharing my time with my colleague, Madame Sansoucy.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Yes, I'll make it quick.
My question is for Minister Duclos, but as well for Mr. Siddall, who a few weeks ago talked about the state of the housing stock on first nations as being “abysmal”, a statement that was supported by many people living on first nations, including those in our constituency. Oftentimes, however, the CMHC has been a barrier when first nations have tried to seek solutions. I've heard about the major financial commitments to first nations' housing in this budget. It is very much appreciated, although many communities also say that it is too limited. There are also a number of first nations that are interested in pursuing opportunities to build their own homes on reserve, including sourcing lumber from their own territory, training opportunities and, ultimately, their benefiting that way from the homes they build. Is the CMHC, as part of the conversations you're wanting to engage in, prepared to look at those options that first nations are asking for?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec, QC
I'll provide the first part of the answer and let Mr. Siddall provide the rest.
As you said, our brothers and sisters in indigenous communities need our support in a significant manner in two different ways: first in terms of attitude, and second in terms of actions. I think we want to change both. The attitude announced is going to be different on a nation-to-nation basis, and the resources and the actions, as you rightly mentioned, are going to be important. I'm not going to mention the numbers, because you know those numbers. I will let Mr. Siddall get on with some further details.
April 11th, 2016 / 5:05 p.m.
Evan Siddall President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
I'll reply directly by answering that, yes, we will be participating in consultations as part of the national housing strategy that Minister Duclos responded on. We will also be doing so in the context of consultations with first nations among ourselves, our colleagues at Employment and Social Development Canada and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, in identifying needs among first nations communities on reserve as well as Inuit communities in the north—meaning indigenous populations as a whole—to hear from them.
You will have noted—and I'll talk more on Wednesday about what's in the budget for Inuit and northern housing as well as first nations housing—that it's a very high priority for us. We're delighted to follow the lead of the government of the day and continue to make more investments in housing for indigenous communities.
