Debates of April 17th, 2018

Employment Insurance

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for requesting this debate today. As members know, the topic of this debate, the employment insurance sickness benefit, is of utmost importance to our government.

Since taking office, we have introduced changes to the El system to make it more flexible, and to make sure that El aligns with both the needs of Canadian families and the realities of today's labour market. In particular, EI sickness benefits are an important support measure for Canadians who have to leave their job due to injury, sickness, or quarantine. They provide temporary financial assistance to eligible people who are unable to work, so they can restore their health before returning to work.

In 2015-16, the EI program received more than 365,000 sickness benefit claims, and paid out over $1.5 billion for this type of benefit. On average, recipients claimed 10 weeks of benefits of the maximum entitlement of 15 weeks. This shows that, in the majority of cases, the available coverage is sufficient. We are well aware that sometimes recipients use up their 15 weeks of benefits before they are able to return to work. We are keeping a close eye on this situation.

Sickness benefits are just one part of a range of support measures for Canadians living with long-term sickness or disability. This also includes Canada pension plan disability benefits, benefits paid by private insurance programs, and support programs implemented by provinces and territories. Our government is also constantly working to improve the EI program.

As I noted earlier, we have enacted and implemented several changes to ensure that the El system is more adaptable, fairer, and more flexible, and that it continues to support Canadians when they need it most. On December 3, for example, changes to EI special benefits came into effect. They highlighted our government's support for caregivers by making El benefits more flexible, more inclusive, and more accessible.

First, we created a new EI family caregiver benefit for adults. This provides up to 15 weeks of benefits to eligible caregivers to offer support to an adult family member who is critically ill or injured. In addition to specialist physicians, general practitioners and nurse practitioners can now sign documents attesting that the child or adult is critically ill. This change also applies to compassionate care benefits for providing end-of-life care for family members.

Once again, our government is committed to making sure that Canada's EI system is flexible enough to meet the needs of modern-day families, because we understand that this is the best way to help Canadians when they need it the most.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I put myself in the shoes of those who are in this situation and who hear the government talk about averages and reviewing the situation. These people are hearing that they are among the minority in claiming the 15 weeks of benefits. Then, the government changes topics and goes on to speak more generally. The difficult circumstances these people are in do not get any better.

This is disheartening, because the Prime Minister said that he would do something. He said this on the Téléjournal, in Montreal, as did the minister. The government needs to stop sticking its head in the sand and fulfill its promises. I will ask my question one last time for all those who are facing financial difficulties instead of fighting their illnesses.

On behalf of all of my constituents, when will this government fulfill its commitment to review the EI sickness benefits system?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government strongly believes that the employment insurance program plays a crucial role in ensuring a decent income for families living in these particularly difficult circumstances.

We have implemented several concrete measures to make the employment insurance program even more flexible and generous for those who need it. However, we are not going to stop there. We are going to continue to improve the lives of workers who have faced these kinds of tragedies. As the minister recently said in the House, our work has only begun.

Housing

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, adjournment debates allow us to return to an answer that may not have been entirely satisfactory. Last November, I asked a question related to the victims caught in a grey area, which I will have an opportunity to explain. In response, the Minister of International Trade spouted rhetoric. People will say that it may not be unusual for the Minister of International Trade to spout rhetoric, but I was particularly disappointed that this minister, who lives in the Mauricie region and is very familiar with the issue, evaded my question rather than finding a solution to help the victims.

What are we talking about when we say that people are caught in a grey area when it comes to pyrrhotite? We have spoken quite a lot about this matter. I caution the person who is going to trot out the answer this evening. I do not want to hear about $30 million having been allocated. We know this, as do the victims in Trois-Rivières, especially all those who cannot access this money, which is woefully inadequate to meet their needs.

In any case, this is not really the issue. The people caught in the grey area are the owners of homes with concrete that has a pyrrhotite content between 0% and 0.23%, the benchmark cited in the first ruling made public. However, this benchmark, as the judge mentioned, is not a scientifically proven standard. It is a benchmark that he cited based on the examples he studied in this first wave of court cases.

However, none of the victims caught in this grey area qualify for financial assistance. They are not eligible for any of the $30 million the Liberals keep talking about, because the percentage of pyrrhotite in their homes is under 0.23%, even though we already know that some of them are having problems with pyrrhotite in their foundations anyway. As for those who have not seen any problems yet, their homes are a total write-off. No one would buy a house riddled with pyrrhotite.

The only way to save these people from the grey area is for the federal government to establish a quality standard for concrete aggregates, based on a scientific study. Below a certain percentage, the homeowner could be certain of having no problems, and the home would regain its full value.

How can it be that in 2018, the year when the government has agreed to review the building code standards, no study is being conducted to establish a scientific standard on pyrrhotite in order to rescue all the victims from the awkward grey area that is making it impossible for them to sell their homes?

When is the government going to fund a study on the quality of concrete aggregates that will let the victims in the grey area move on?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the comments made earlier today by the member for Trois-Rivières regarding the national building code and pyrrhotite. Today we are going to talk about the grey area he was referring to regarding pyrrhotite content and concrete components. My colleague across the aisle will be happy with the following answers.

As the hon. opposition member knows, the health and safety of Canadians is absolutely a priority for this government. We are aware that the pyrrhotite deteriorating the concrete used in home foundations is causing major problems in Mauricie, Quebec. A member from this side lives in this region and has given us an overview of the problem. This mineral swells when it is exposed to water, which has led to significant, costly damages and is causing many problems for families.

This is why our government, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Quebec have signed an agreement to help those affected. I am proud to say that this assistance includes a federal investment of $30 million in the previous budget. The member opposite does not want to hear this amount, because there was nothing allocated when I assumed this position. We have allocated $10 million a year. The member opposite claims that this is nothing, but as we can see when we crunch the numbers, this amount can cover hundreds of houses. The investments started in 2016-17 to help owners affected by pyrrhotite in the concrete. Whether or not he wants to hear it, the figures speak for themselves, and these are the figures in our budget.

Let us now talk about the federal government's role as it pertains to building codes. It involves dealing with the grey area and supporting the independent Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes to develop a series of national model codes every five years, including the national building code, the national plumbing code, the national fire code, and the national energy code for buildings.

I had the opportunity to interpret those codes for over 35 years as part of my career. I can say this is massive undertaking, that these organizations can develop national model codes based on major public consultation. In fact, the Canadian code-writing process has one of the most extensive public review procedures in the world. This ensures that the codes are responsive to the needs of Canadians and incorporate a broad range of important considerations. Who are we as MPs to decide on an appropriate level? We put our trust in the professionals. They are the ones who will decide. The organizations are in place and they are the ones who will find solutions. They will take into account technologies, materials, innovation, construction practices, and research to establish acceptable levels. This process has resulted in Canada having one of the best standards of construction in the world. I am proud of Canada’s national building code, which makes it possible to achieve a high degree of uniformity in building construction.

On the specific issue of pyrrhotite, the National Model Building Codes published in 2005, 2010 and 2015 do reference the Canadian Standards Association, or CSA, standard that prohibits the use of expansive aggregates such as pyrrhotite in concrete. There are other products, but pyrrhotite is one. The NRC continues to work with stakeholders on developing a research project, which is what people wanted to hear I am told, to inform the development of a standard for pyrrhotite in concrete. The NRC is coordinating its efforts and working with partners, including universities, cement and concrete associations, the CSA, and government partners. We expect the results of this work to inform the interim update of the National Model Building Code planned for 2022. The CSA is currently considering updates to this standard. It is anticipated that the next edition of the National Model Building Code, which will be released in 2020, and all subsequent updates, will take into consideration the standard on pyrrhotite, as well as justify said standard.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. We have already said thanks for the $30 million; we are not going to say it 50 million times. Carrying out its responsibilities is the very least a government should be expected to do.

I never suggested members of Parliament should be the ones writing the new standards, but just as my colleague said, the CSA will take research results into account. The problem is that there is no research because there is no funding for research. Only specialized labs and university labs like the one at Laval University can produce the kind of definitive answers that the CSA would take into account. The last time it looked at this, it said there was no new information that justified making a change. If there is no research, there will be no new information next time either.

When will the government fund a scientific study?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague had a minute to reply and that he kept talking about the $30 million to run down the clock. We have actually discussed a partnership with the university. We also talked about putting our organizations to work on this issue to improve the national building code. We have also worked on policies based on important facts. We have this file well in hand. Today I am proud to say that our government has taken substantive action on this file. Nothing could have been done better than what we have done so far.

Taxation

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

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to again talk about a question that came up last November.

In November, I had asked the Minister of National Revenue about her mandate to provide a more client-focused Canada Revenue Agency. I pointed out then that under her watch, her department had reversed or changed the policy on type 1 diabetics to deny the tax credit to many Canadians who had qualified for many years.

I raised a number of issues, including the sort of half-baked plans the department had to tax retail and restaurant workers. I mentioned the busy signals or hang-ups at the call centre. However, the main part of my question then was in reaction to a growing number of accounts that we had heard. Some were raised by my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, about targeting single parents, telling them they had not supplied sufficient evidence, or they were in fact separated or divorced, causing all kinds of consternation for some folks about having to obtain, sometimes at great expense, separation agreements, which were then still rejected as evidence of separation for tax purposes. The response I had to that question was wholly inadequate, hence why we are revisiting it tonight.

The minister talked about the intention of having a client-focused Canada Revenue Agency and being instructed through a mandate letter to do so. She talked about how the agency did not really try to hurt anybody, suggesting that anybody who was having problems providing the documents required should contact the CRA for help.

I thought that was a particularly ironic response, given that we were already seized with the matter of the call centre debacle, where almost two-thirds of the people who did call the centre for help were simply hung up on. Of those who actually did get through, 30% of the people were given wrong information. Being given wrong information is probably worse. It makes taxpayers worse off than they were before they made the phone call. They think they have been told something that will affect their course of action with compliance, but they are in fact wrong. They may have been better off having not called at all.

Therefore, it is really not an adequate response to say that people should call the CRA and it will help them out. We already know from the Auditor General's report the sort of futility that surrounds that.

I can imagine we may hear tonight more blaming of the previous government, saying the Liberals inherited a situation that was so bad that there was nothing they could do to fix it. However, it has been two and half years. There is a certain point at which they have to own their track record. The deterioration of the service that many tax preparers are reporting to me have been accelerating in the last couple of years.

Notwithstanding that, I am certain the previous government did not get everything right and not everything went perfectly. However, this is not a race to the bottom to see who can deliver the worst service to Canadians.

Canadians need answers and they need a plan to deliver a truly client or taxpayer-focused Canada Revenue Agency.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House tonight and speak about the service improvements that our government has brought forward and will continue to bring forward to the Canada Revenue Agency.

I would like to note the important role the CRA plays in distributing the benefits on which Canadians rely. I am happy my colleague brought up the Canada child benefit, one of the most important policies our government has put in place, raising hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. In the 2016-17 benefit year, in my colleague's riding of Calgary Rocky Ridge alone, we supported over 24,000 children with payments totalling over $67 million. That is almost 25,000 children in his own riding whom the member opposite chose not to support when he voted against this historic measure.

Let us now talk about some of the important service improvements we have made at the CRA to ensure that families across our country have access to important credits and benefits, such as the Canada child benefit.

Through our historic investments in the community volunteer income tax program, we help to support community organizations hosting free tax clinics for eligible individuals. I am proud to tell members that last year, through the CVITP, approximately 17,000 volunteers helped file approximately 768,000 tax returns all across Canada. This year we expect to surpass those numbers.

With more and more Canadians filing their taxes online, improved digital services are more important than ever before. Last year, nearly 90% of the 25 million returns filed were completed online. This is why we have improved and implemented programs such as the “Auto-fill my return” and ReFILE. The express notice of assessment service is now available in certified tax software and allows Canadians to receive and print their notice of assessment right after filing.

Despite a high number of Canadians who filed their taxes using digital services, it is also important to our government that we meet the needs of people who file their taxes using traditional methods. In February, Canadians who filed their individual income taxes using paper forms in previous years received a tax return package directly by mail.

File my Return, a new service introduced this year, lets eligible Canadians with low and fixed incomes whose situations remain unchanged from year to year file their income tax and benefits return through a dedicated automated phone service. Furthermore, to make tax payments more convenient for Canadians, people can now make their payment in person with cash or by debit card at Canada Post outlets. This new in-person payment service helps people living in remote and northern areas who may not live close to a bank or have easy access to Internet service.

We are extremely proud of the work that we have done, and we are committed to doing even more to make life easier for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, while I always listen to my colleague eagerly when we are having these discussions, at the beginning of her statement she said that she was going to tell us all about the service improvements at the CRA. She certainly had my attention there, and I thought I might hear about some substantial new service improvements that might have addressed some of the issues that I mentioned in my question.

I heard that the CRA is mailing paper tax returns to Canadians who filed by paper last year. No doubt that is convenient for those Canadians. Others had contacted, for example, my MP office, and they were put out that they had wanted to go and pick up one from somewhere and noted that they are not available to be picked up. Some people got their package mailed to them. That is great, and perhaps it is a service improvement. Some people can pay their taxes at a post office. That is a service improvement, perhaps.

What about the growing backlog of appeals and the growing volume—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is only one minute for rebuttal. I am sorry.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. Canada Revenue Agency must treat all Canadians like valued clients, not simply as taxpayers, and not certainly like Conservatives did when they were in government.

In just two years, we have made numerous improvements to ensure CRA better serves all Canadians. I thank my hon. colleague for raising this question because it gives me an opportunity to talk a bit about the service improvements that I just mentioned in my speech earlier. Even with the progress we made, we understand there remains significant work to be done, but we are committed to getting it done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.)