Debates of March 21st, 2018

Taxation

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to clear up any misunderstandings about the disability tax credit.

Let me be absolutely clear that there have been no changes to the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit related to diabetes. Unlike my colleagues on the other side, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians with disabilities not only receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled, but are also able to advise the CRA on how best to serve them.

That is exactly why the Minister of National Revenue has reinstated the disability advisory committee, which the previous government abolished in 2006. After more than 10 years without a voice, Canadians with disabilities, stakeholders, and experts are finally able to formally engage with the CRA and provide insight on how to best ensure they receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

Contrary to my colleague's misleading assertions, the CRA's processing times for the disability tax credit are currently stable with an average processing time of six to eight weeks over the last few months. Cases are processed on a case-by-case basis, and time frames can vary depending on the complexity of the application.

In addition to hearing directly from Canadians with disabilities, our government has taken concrete steps to make it easier for Canadians to apply for the disability tax credit. Budget 2017 allowed nurse practitioners to certify the medical information and the effects of the person's impairment on the application form, making the application process much easier and more accessible.

I am glad to report that over 80% of applications received by the CRA are approved, allowing more than 700,000 Canadians to claim the disability tax credit on their annual tax return.

Last, our government is committed to ensuring that not only Canadians with disabilities but all Canadians receive the benefits and credits to which they are entitled. That is why the CRA is working hard to better serve Canadians. For example, the new file my return service enables eligible Canadians, particularly those with a low or fixed income, to file their returns by answering a few questions over the phone. This year, paper tax filers were mailed their T1 forms directly. The CRA and Service Canada are working closely together to ensure indigenous communities across Canada receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we have just heard a recitation of a number of consistent talking points that have come up over the last number of months on this issue. What was missing is a simple apology.

Everybody knows the government spent six months denying the disability tax credit to type 1 diabetics and other disabled and vulnerable Canadians. This has been well established.

Tonight the parliamentary secretary is assuring us that we are back up to the 80% approval rate that existed before the government changed the form in May 2017. A simple apology to the disabled community would have been more appropriate.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be unequivocal that our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians with disabilities receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled.

Canada is at its best and all of society benefits when everyone is included. That is why our government is committed to ensuring greater accessibility and opportunities for Canadians with disabilities in their communities and workplaces.

More Canadians were approved for this important credit last year than ever before. That is good news, and we will work to see that trend continue.

Rail Transportation

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to pursue a question I originally asked in this place on November 8 of last year.

I preface my question by talking about a quite remarkable program in my riding. A local public high school, Claremont Secondary School, raises money every year for Rails to Relevance. Kids from Claremont Secondary School get on a train in Vancouver and make their way to Ottawa. They also tour Montreal and Quebec City. The extraordinary learning experience of being on a train is irreplaceable. I ride with them as often as I can and discuss with them Westminster parliamentary democracy and the nature of Canada's democracy. It is quite an extraordinary experience, and one far too few Canadians have, of travelling this country by rail.

The Minister of Transport gave a very good answer that day. He said that he was very committed to passenger rail service. Therefore, one might ask why I am up at adjournment proceedings still concerned.

I am concerned because I am not sure that the management of VIA Rail understands the importance of passenger rail service across Canada. I know that the data collection about the people who use VIA Rail is often misleading.

I can give an example. I know that the Quebec-Windsor corridor, particularly since this government came to office, has had more money, and the schedules have been improved. However, on the service for Canadians from Montreal to Halifax, called “The Ocean” line, and from Toronto to Vancouver, called “The Canadian” line, the impression one gets from the way that service is run is that it is essentially a high-end, land-based cruise for tourists. The data collected by VIA Rail, when I last spoke to it about this, would suggest that this is the case.

It is not until one visits the economy sections of the train that one finds local transit. There are families, because while it is cheaper to fly from Toronto to Vancouver than it is to take the train, if one has small children and is travelling from Edmonton to Winnipeg, it is definitely not cheaper to fly. VIA Rail has discounts for seniors and discounts children.

If people want a cheaper way to travel, they are better off in the economy section of the train and bringing their own food. This is unfortunate. In the old days, VIA Rail would allow someone from economy to go forward and buy in the dining car. We have created a high-end luxury travel experience, and if that is how it is perceived, service for passenger rail will be at risk.

The report commissioned by the previous government, and prepared under former minister Emerson's guidance, basically said that all support for passenger rail from Toronto west and Montreal east should be eliminated.

What I am pleading for is that the management at VIA Rail, with the leadership of this government, recognize that we need a legislative framework for VIA Rail, just as the U.S. has for Amtrak. I have a private member's bill to that effect. We need to fund VIA Rail and conceive of it as part of a national transportation system in the context of a post-carbon economy. We need to do much more to modernize rail.

Where I live in Saanich—Gulf Islands, we used to have a Victoria to Courtenay daily railroad, the island corridor rail service. It needs funding. Where I used to live in Cape Breton Island, we used to have service from Halifax to Sydney. We used to have service a couple of times a day from Halifax to Yarmouth or from Halifax to Wolfville. There are many rail lines across this country that are still in place and could provide low-cost, low-carbon, efficient, modern passenger service.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her advocacy.

Let me start by reassuring her that the government is and has always been committed to passenger rail services as we recognize the value and historical importance of such services to the Canadian public. Canada's iconic coast to coast rail system highlights the connectivity and the unity of our country, while our intercity passenger rail also addresses many key mobility needs of Canadians. It does this by providing accessible transportation options for persons with disabilities and connecting communities with little or no alternative year-round public transportation.

Moreover, passenger rail is often acknowledged as a fuel-efficient means of transportation, thereby helping us lessen our carbon footprint on the environment. On this we definitely agree.

The minister's mandate is to ensure that the Canadian transportation system supports our economic growth while providing a service that is safe, reliable, environmentally responsible, and enhances the passengers' experience. That is why we have launched the transportation 2030 strategy, setting the path forward for Canada's transportation system. Within this strategy, we are committed to investing in innovative and green transportation that will allow Canadians to move freely and efficiently.

Currently, our government is considering options to enhance and modernize national passenger rail services to better meet the transportation needs of Canadians. In budget 2016, we allocated $45 million to various VIA Rail projects, including $7.7 million to support technical studies on the renewal of its fleet and for safety upgrades, as well as $3.3 million over three years to support an in-depth assessment of VIA Rail's high-frequency rail proposal.

After considering the results of this assessment, we have decided to undertake the additional foundational work required to advance any project of this scale with $8 million of funding announced in budget 2018. Furthermore, we were pleased to announce, this Monday, funding for VIA Rail's fleet renewal. VIA will launch its procurement process in the spring of 2018 to replace VIA's coaches and locomotives in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. New trains will improve reliability, enhance accessibility for passengers with disabilities, and reduce smog and cancer-causing emissions.

We are proud of investing in passenger rail to make travel more accessible and efficient for all Canadians. It will support economic growth and job creation, and promote a sustainable environment for generations to come.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. parliamentary secretary for such a positive response. Let me mention one of the other big concerns that is structural. This will take real leadership.

Since the creation of VIA Rail in the 1970s, the tracks that were created for both passenger and freight were consigned to freight and then over time, by 1994, CN became a privatized corporation and the tracks whether CN, CP, or other private companies were leased back to VIA Rail. This impedes VIA's ability to provide on-time performance because their trains are always sidelined for freight.

I am very concerned about these twin threats. We have grain piling up in the Prairies that cannot get to Vancouver and we have passengers sitting on the sidelines hoping a freight train might pass. Ultimately we need to have a national rail service that serves passengers and freight. I know it is a tall order, but I am hoping the parliamentary secretary can do it.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that the government does recognize the importance of intercity passenger rail service and we will continue to support it.

The Minister of Transport is responsible for making sure that the mobility needs of Canadians are met. Access to a safe, reliable, and efficient transportation network promotes economic growth and strengthens our middle class. Likewise, a mobile Canada means a more prosperous nation. That is why in our strategic plan, transportation 2030, we have given the traveller such a high priority. Notably, our strategy is aimed at providing more options and better service for travellers while securing the long-term financial viability of passenger rail.

We are heading in the right direction, but there is more work to be done.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House once again to urge the government to take action on the ongoing discrimination in Canada's immigration system against individuals with disabilities. Paragraph 38(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows for the rejection of an entire family of applicants if one individual has a disability or medical condition that officials believe could put “excessive demand on [Canada's] health or social services”.

Witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration confirmed that the numbers provided to assess excessive demand are arbitrary, inaccurate, and do not take into account the potential contributions of the disabled person and/or the family unit. This paragraph of the act has been explicitly and repeatedly recognized by parliamentarians, committee witnesses, and the Minister of Immigration himself as enabling discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

In fact, during the recent Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration study of this provision, the member for Surrey Centre stated:

I would say that initially I thought it was a good policy, because that would perhaps be a big burden on Canadians, but then I looked back—and I don't want to equate it to this—and it's no different from the slave trade, in which only those selected as the strongest and the most able-bodied were brought from Africa. It's not that that whole policy is good at all, but I'm saying it is akin to discriminating when we're picking only people who are healthy, fully functioning, with no intellectual disabilities and no physical disabilities.

The member for Surrey Centre also stated:

As you can tell, almost all of us have an inclination that this policy is discriminatory. We already can see that even within immigration there's a two-tiered policy.

The member for St. John's East, in an exchange with the minister, said:

I must say that at this point in time I do not see how raising the threshold and excluding fewer people changes the fact that excluding anyone is prima facie discriminatory and violates Canadian values.

The parliamentary secretary, in the House, when I asked him this question, said, “The excessive-demand provision is indeed an outdated policy”. He also said, “From a principled perspective, the current excessive-demand policy simply does not align with our country’s values on the inclusion of persons with disabilities in Canadian society.”

However, widespread recognition of this blatantly discriminatory policy has instilled no sense of urgency from the government to rectify the issue. The government has been consulting on this policy since October 2016, even though this provision is a textbook case of discrimination, one that has affected the lives of hundreds of immigrants who are good enough to work but not good enough to stay if their loved ones are affected by a disability.

That foot-dragging is both irresponsible and an insult to people like Mercedes Benitez and Monica Mateo. These women came to Canada under the live-in caregiver program and have cared for our children and seniors. After years of waiting to be reunited with their families, because one of their children has a developmental disability, they are now being discriminated against. These families deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

Will the government commit to taking my private member's bill, Bill C-398, turn it into a government bill, and repeal paragraph 38(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use my speaking time this evening to clarify certain points related to the Government of Canada's agenda on accessibility and immigration applicants.

As the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has said, our government is currently reviewing the fundamental aspects of this policy to ensure that it still lines up with the direction our government is taking.

As members know, Canada's medical admissibility rules for immigration applicants help lighten the load on Canada's publicly funded health and social services systems.

Under the current legislation, the immigration officers reviewing these applications determine whether the applicant could place excessive demand on health and social services, by examining what services the applicant needs, the cost of these services, and the impact on waiting lists.

I want to make it clear that the policy does not apply to refugees or to certain sponsored family members. I also want to point out that there is no health condition that leads to the systematic rejection of an application and that every applicant is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The policy is meant to strike a balance between two fundamental principles, namely protecting publicly funded health and social services and promoting family reunification and refugee protection.

As my colleague pointed out, the minister has said that the excessive demand policy is some 40 years old and is not in line with our accessibility agenda.

Our government recognizes that the policy needs to be fairer and that the inclusion of persons with disabilities must be taken into account. At the same time, we must protect our publicly funded health and social services.

As a result, officials at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada reviewed the excessive demand provision, and the department conducted a comprehensive review of the provision regarding excessive demand on health and social services. This commitment was made public in April 2016, as part of senior management's response to an internal evaluation of the health screening program.

The department is considering the views of all stakeholders, including disability advocates and, of course, the provinces and territories.

I can assure my colleague and all members that the minister is also taking into consideration the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which my colleague is a member. It is important to hold such consultations in order to identify new options and ensure that the policy is satisfactory and stands the test of time.

Again, our government is committed to ensuring that the policy on accessibility and immigration applicants strikes a balance between the need to protect social services, education, and health and the need to deal with these applications fairly. Once again, we want to ensure that issues regarding family reunification are resolved and that this policy is fair. That is why we are currently reviewing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We will have an answer in this regard very soon.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, paragraph 38(1)(c) goes against Canada's stated values on inclusion and the ideals we purported to uphold when we ratified the UN convention on the rights of the disabled. From 2013 to 2016, 68 individuals were denied status in Canada due to impaired hearing, and 21 were denied for impaired vision. Imagine that. Further, 697 individuals were discriminated against due to developmental delay or an intellectual disability.

It has taken the government almost two years to recognize that breaking these families apart or denying them status in Canada based on a discriminatory law is wrong. The only way forward is the full repeal of paragraph 38(1)(c). Nearly all the witnesses at committee stated that it was the only option, and even government members at the committee recognized the discriminating nature of this provision. The time to act is now. No more delays.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, the minister himself appeared before the committee and clearly stated that this policy is outdated, since it is over 40 years old.

As I said earlier, the policy seeks to strike a balance between protecting publicly funded health and social services and promoting family reunification and refugee protection. We also want these applications to be dealt with fairly, and we are carefully examining the committee's recommendations in this regard. I can assure my colleague that the minister is taking those recommendations very seriously. I hope that we will have an answer in the very near future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 7:07 p.m.)