Adam Vaughan

[Housing, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear that one homeless person was one homeless person too many. We have a strategy, a $40 billion strategy over the next 10 years. It is going to reduce chronic homelessness, episodic homelessness, and the vulnerabilities that people find themselves in across the country.

The new Canada housing benefit will address 300,000 people and will prevent people from swelling the ranks of the homeless. We have a strategy, which we doubled in our first year, a $2.2 billion strategy that is being reprofiled in consultation with people with lived experiences, community organizations, municipalities, and provinces and territories. We will attack this issue. If we can do better than half, we will do everything in our power to achieve that.

[Housing, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, let us compare what the NDP promised and what the Liberals are now delivering.

The NDP, in the last election, promised to repair 50,000 units of housing; we are going to do 300,000 units. On providing the operating agreements, the NDP was going to renew 365,000; we are doing 385,000 operating agreements. Let us talk about new housing. The NDP promised 10,000 units over four years; we are doing 100,000 over 10 years. When it comes to new subsidies, zero from the NDP; 300,000 from this party.

If the member is going to call something “timid”, I am going to call something “meek”. That was meek—

[Housing, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, housing rights are human rights, and I want to thank the member for Cambridge for drawing attention to this government's historic commitment to housing rights.

Our commitment is grounded in the principles of accountability, participation, and of course non-discrimination. We will be putting forward legislation that would require this government and future governments to maintain a national housing strategy now and into the future. We are establishing a community-based tenant fund for grassroots organizations so that people with lived experiences can help guide us through this process. We are creating a national housing council and appointing a federal housing advocate to ensure our policies are inclusive and accountable. We understand the importance of housing rights. We are matching our actions with words but, more important, our words are “finance” and “funded”. Let us get building.

[Housing, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

Our department's first duty is to consult.

The NDP confuses me. The first question was that we are going too slowly, and now they say we are going too fast. I do not understand.

This is what we are doing. We are serving Canadians through a rights-based approach. There will be 385,000 people who will see their subsidies renewed. There will be close to 500,000 Canadians who will receive rent subsidies so they can now live in affordable and safe housing of their choice. There will be more than 100,000 people who will see new housing units built in the next 10 years, and close to 300,000 units will be repaired. This is the best policy a Government of Canada has ever produced, and I would be happy to walk her through her riding to show her where it is going to make real change.

[Housing, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that every Canadian deserves a home that is safe, affordable, and adequate. We want every Canadian to live somewhere that feels like home, so everyone has an equal chance to succeed in this country.

Our $40 billion commitment over the next 10 years is historic. It is the longest and largest investment in public housing in the history of the country. It is framed in a human rights approach, which is now being praised by the United Nations as groundbreaking on the international scale.

I will read a quote quickly: “Congratulations and well done. Heck of an accomplishment on housing”. That was Joe Cressy, the NDP candidate I defeated to get into this place.

[National Security Act, 2017, November 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I always like to listen to my colleagues from the New Democratic Party complain that there is not enough in the bill, and that it is simultaneously an omnibus bill. They want more, but if we did more it would be more of an omnibus bill and therefore they would have to be opposed to it. I do not understand that contradiction, but I will let the New Democrats explain it to themselves.

All of the eight chapters are specifically tied to national security. It is not unrelated. It is not like when the Conservatives moved an amendment to the Canadian Marine Act, and then talked about child welfare, then INAC, and then global affairs. These are eight complete chapters integrated with one another and they deal with distinctive measures such as splitting out the youth justice part from the adult justice part and doing it in two separate ways so it can be studied in an important way.

All that aside, in light of the fact that the bill has received the endorsement of Mr. Forcese and Mr. Roach, two of the most distinguished critics of Bill C-51 and in light of the fact that, in particular, Craig Forcese said that this is a real cleanup of the CSIS powers, a reform of the damage done by Bill C-51 to the independence and the investigative powers of CSIS, would the New Democrats not agree with those leading academics, the very ones they cited in their criticisms of Bill C-51, to support this bill in its entirety and stop complaining about its omnibus nature?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, old age security, OAS, benefits are intended to provide partial income security for seniors in recognition of the contributions that they have made to Canadian society and the economy. Low-income pensioners are entitled to additional assistance through the guaranteed income supplement, GIS. The GIS is calculated based on income to ensure that these benefits are provided to seniors most in need.

The GIS is paid at a different rate based on whether seniors are single or part of a couple. This reflects the different economic realities of single seniors and senior couples.

Since 1971, the Old Age Security Act has contained a provision that allows low-income couples in receipt of the GIS and who are forced to live apart for reasons beyond their control to receive their benefits at the higher single rate, based on their individual incomes. The intent of this provision was to recognize the increase in cost of living where one member of a couple remained in the matrimonial home while the other was required to go into a chronic care facility, nursing home, or home for the aged. These couples are often described as being “involuntarily separated”. In budget 2016, the OAS Act was amended to extend this provision to involuntarily separated couples where one member receives the GIS and the other receives the allowance. These amendments came into force on January 1, 2017.

In January 2017, the department issued an administrative policy direction to front-line Service Canada staff in order to reflect the expanded scope of the provisions for GIS/allowance couples. The department also took the opportunity to clarify the intent of the legislation with respect to eligibility for the involuntary separation provisions.

Specifically, the policy guidance was amended to state that couples must first qualify for the GIS on the basis of their joint income before the involuntary separation provisions could be applied. The policy direction was consistent with the intent of the GIS, which is to target assistance to those most in need. In order to address any possible situations where individuals had been paid under these provisions while their combined income was above the allowable threshold, a “grandfathering” clause was included to ensure that no current beneficiaries would see a reduction in their benefits.

Shortly thereafter, the department began to receive a number of enquiries from members of Parliament and clients with respect to this policy guidance. As a result, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has asked his officials to undertake a further analysis on the impact of the January 2017 policy directive. It became apparent that the implementation of this policy guidance was disadvantaging modest income couples. The minister has therefore tasked the department to correct this issue, by assessing the eligibility of couples involuntarily separated based solely on their individual incomes.

The department has already begun identifying senior couples who were affected by the January 2017 policy direction, a process that will be completed by the end of October. Departmental officials will subsequently reassess the benefit entitlement of any couples who were impacted by the January 2017 directive. The number of couples impacted by the directive is expected to be low.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, old age security, OAS, benefits are intended to provide partial income security for seniors in recognition of the contributions that they have made to Canadian society and the economy. Low-income pensioners are entitled to additional assistance through the guaranteed income supplement, GIS. The GIS is calculated based on income to ensure that these benefits are provided to seniors most in need.

The GIS is paid at a different rate based on whether seniors are single or part of a couple. This reflects the different economic realities of single seniors and senior couples.

Since 1971, the Old Age Security Act has contained a provision that allows low-income couples in receipt of the GIS and who are forced to live apart for reasons beyond their control to receive their benefits at the higher single rate based on their individual incomes. The intent of this provision was to recognize the increase in cost of living where one member of a couple remained in the matrimonial home while the other was required to go into a chronic care facility, nursing home, or home for the aged. These couples are often described as being “involuntarily separated”. In budget 2016, the OAS Act was amended to extend this provision to involuntarily separated couples where one member receives the GIS and the other receives the allowance. These amendments came into force on January 1, 2017.

In January 2017, the department issued an administrative policy direction to front-line Service Canada staff in order to reflect the expanded scope of the provisions for GIS/allowance couples. The department also took the opportunity to clarify the intent of the legislation with respect to eligibility for the involuntary separation provisions.

Specifically, the policy guidance was amended to state that couples must first qualify for the GIS on the basis of their joint income before the involuntary separation provisions could be applied. In order to address any possible situations where individuals had been paid under these provisions while their combined income was above the allowable threshold, a “grandfathering” clause was included to ensure that no current beneficiaries would see a reduction in their benefits.

Shortly thereafter, the department received an enquiry from Mrs. Vecchio’s office with respect to this policy direction. Departmental officials met with Mrs. Vecchio on June 21, 2017, in order to hear her concerns in person. At that meeting, she expressed her concerns about couples whose combined income is sufficient to render them ineligible for the GIS, but who may have a large disparity of income between the spouses. She noted in particular that in these situations, if the higher income spouse requires long-term care, the higher costs for that care could result in a significant reduction in the pooled income available to the lower income spouse.

As a result, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development asked his officials to undertake a further analysis on the impact of the January 2017 policy directive. It became apparent that the implementation of this policy guidance was disadvantaging modest income couples. The minister has therefore tasked the department to correct this issue, by assessing the eligibility of couples involuntarily separated based solely on their individual incomes.

The department has already begun identifying senior couples who were affected by the January 2017 policy direction, a process that will be completed by the end of October. Departmental officials will subsequently reassess the benefit entitlement of any couples who were impacted by the January 2017 directive. The number of couples impacted by the directive is expected to be low.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the issues that the member opposite has raised are perhaps best dealt with by the trade minister or the ministers engaged in negotiations with the United States.

The issue that I was brought to the House on related to a question the member asked earlier in question period regarding EI benefits and our approach to making sure workers are supported. The member has asked if this government is committed to getting a good deal. The answer is yes. Is the government going to continue to negotiate? Absolutely.

With respect to the characterization of the changes as being permanent and lasting forever, I cannot even count the number of times we have encountered this situation, where a deal expires, punishing duties are imposed, trade organizations knock down those measures as being unnecessarily punitive and ill-founded. We move back towards a civil and appropriate conversation with our American trading partners to make sure that workers on both sides of the border are supported, the industry is supported on both sides of the market, and trade is managed in a responsible way. Those remain the goals of this government. Those remain the goals of the individuals of our government seized with that.

If the member would like to discuss more EI situations as they develop, we would be happy to—

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that our government is seized of this issue. We understand the impact that this is having on the individuals, the communities, and the provinces that will be impacted by the end of this deal, which unfortunately has resulted in some of the actions of our trading partner. We are committed to getting a deal, but that does not mean a quick deal. It means the right deal and we will continue to fight and defend Canada's interests.

On the issue of responding, the member opposite raised the issue of our responses that relate to EI in her question during question period, and raised it tangentially in her address tonight. I am thankful to address this issue.

This government is sensitive to the ongoing situation. The EI program is designed to respond to economic changes, such as the ones we are experiencing. Flexibility is built into the program to allow us to respond to deteriorating situations in sectors in particular economies, as they emerge on a region-by-region basis. When a region's unemployment rate rises, the entrance requirement is reduced, and the duration of benefits increases, as it has in many of these communities.

EI is there for unemployed Canadians when they need help the most. Our government is backing that process, and making sure that Service Canada and a whole-of-government approach is at work, working directly with individuals, communities, mayors, and provincial governments to make sure that we provide the appropriate support, training, and transition supports for the interim as we move toward a full-time job.

Last year, we also made a number of other changes to improve the EI program so that it is more accessible generally across the country, particularly in areas that are facing distress. For example, we reduced the two-week waiting period to one week. This measure eases the financial pressure on families waiting for benefits to arrive, and workers who are expecting their benefits to be delivered quickly, even though they have been unemployed through no fault of their own.

We also implemented a new, more flexible, “working while on claim” pilot project. Some of these industries get short-term contracts and people return to work in the interim for short periods of time. We do not interrupt their benefits and their eligibility for benefits. Thus, we have created more flexibility to accommodate their situations, to make sure that affected areas are given the most sympathetic and understanding approach to how benefits are modelled, and model them after the experiences that they are directly involved in and engaged with now.

On June 1, the government also announced $867 million extra to invest and support forestry industry workers and their communities that had been affected by the U.S. measures that had targeted our softwood lumber industry. This includes close to $90 million to mitigate layoffs, to support workforce adjustment to help affected workers transition to new opportunities in the short term, to sustain their presence in those communities, and to re-engage with the industry in the long term.

We will be temporarily extending the maximum duration of work-sharing agreements from 38 to 76 weeks. This is again in order to help those communities sustain a critical mass of workers in the industry with flexibility, so that they can continue to receive benefits and share work, if possible, to retain other benefits with skilled workers in that sector.

The work-sharing program is designed to help employers and employees when there is a temporary reduction in the level of business activity. It supplements the income of EI-eligible workers who agree to work reduced hours temporarily.

We have also taken additional steps, including providing $50 million over two years to affected provinces through amendments to labour market development agreements. This will help displaced workers in the forestry sector with the training and employment supports that they need to transition to new jobs temporarily, sustain the workforce in the communities, sustain communities, and ensure those impacted have the presence of the Canadian government and programs there to sustain the practice and the industry. This will also sustain the quality of life and the social fabric of the communities that have been impacted.

Service Canada is now implementing this national action plan for softwood lumber to respond to the needs of workers affected by this labour dispute. The government is committed to getting a good deal and a strong deal. What we hope is that the deal delivers the certainty and stability that the previous deals had to softwood lumber. It is a critical part of communities across this country, a critical part of our country, and workers should not feel abandoned because this government—