Terry Duguid

[Housing, November 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member's frustration, as he is working on behalf of his constituents, I believe he is aiming it at the wrong target. As I noted earlier, the National Building Code has prohibited the use of pyrrhotite in concrete since 1995, and the Quebec Superior Court recently ruled that responsibility for this problem lies with technical consultants, suppliers, and contractors who were involved in supplying the faulty concrete.

What has changed over the past year is that our government has engaged on this issue. I think the hon. member appreciates that. While the previous government was indifferent to the financial hardship of affected homeowners, we are collaborating with the province to provide $30 million in federal assistance to them.

I am sure the member will acknowledge that this is the right thing to do.

[Housing, November 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member for Trois-Rivières is very familiar with the steps this government has taken to assist homeowners in Quebec whose foundations have been affected by pyrrhotite. We are taking actions even though the federal government bears no responsibility for this problem. This is something we have made clear on previous occasions, and in our platform.

Perhaps a more detailed explanation for the member will be helpful. Indeed, some hon. members may not be familiar with this issue, so let me begin by providing some background.

In the mid-1990s, contractors in some parts of Quebec began to use concrete containing pyrrhotite, a mineral that can cause deterioration, over time, as slabs are exposed to water. Hundreds of homes in Trois-Rivières and Maskinongé have been affected by the problem, which typically requires the costly replacement of the foundation.

The member for Trois-Rivières believes that the federal standards for the aggregates used in concrete is at the root of the problem. This is simply not the case.

First, it is important to understand that the provinces and territories regulate the design and construction of new houses and buildings. This is why, when Canadians want to build or renovate their homes, they apply to the local municipality, not the federal government, for the necessary permits.

The National Model Construction Codes are prepared under the direction of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, with the goal of promoting technical consistency of regulations and market uniformity across Canada. However, it is up to the authorities that publish building codes in each province and territory to decide whether to adopt the codes.

More to the point is that the use of expansive aggregates such as pyrrhotite in concrete has been prohibited under the National Building Code for more than 20 years. The fact is that federal construction standards banned the use of pyrrhotite in concrete before these problems began to emerge in Quebec. The member for Trois-Rivières is asking the federal government to do something that has already been done.

It is also worth noting that in June 2014, the Quebec Superior Court concluded that professional technical consultants, suppliers, and contractors involved in the supply of faulty concrete were responsible for this economic and human tragedy.

However, our government is more concerned with doing the right thing than assigning blame. That is why in budget 2016, we included a commitment to provide up to $30 million, over three years, to help homeowners who are dealing with the consequences of pyrrhotite.

That commitment is now being fulfilled through an agreement signed by the governments of Canada and Quebec on July 11.

Under this agreement, the Société d'habitation du Québec has been given the green light to begin delivering the federal funds through the existing Quebec program to compensate homeowners who have been impacted by pyrrhotite. This is the quickest and fairest way to deliver assistance to affected homeowners.

I would encourage the member for Trois-Rivières to recognize the government's efforts in this regard.

[Housing, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, we are concerned about homelessness in our country, and that is why in budget 2016 we announced an additional $112 million for the homelessness partnering strategy over two years. This was a 50% increase, the first increase since 1999.

Our social development minister recently met with provincial and territorial ministers, and homelessness will be a front and centre issue as we develop a national housing strategy.

[Seniors, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the hard work of seniors who helped build our country. They deserve to retire in dignity.

It is why we restored the age of eligibility of OAS and GIS to 65 from 67, a very wrong-headed move by the previous government. We have raised the guaranteed income supplement for 900,000 low-income seniors, and invested over $200 million in senior housing.

Make no mistake, our government is there for seniors, now and tomorrow.

[Housing, November 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to improving access to affordable housing for Canadians. Last week, I announced the signing of a two-year investment in affordable housing agreement with the Hon. Scott Fielding, minister of families for the province of Manitoba. This agreement doubles current funding and makes new investments to support affordable housing for seniors and victims of family violence, and to repair existing social housing units.

Our government also made a commitment to consult Canadians on a national housing strategy. On November 22, National Housing Day, we released a report on “What we Heard” through the consultations.

A clear message has emerged. Canadians want better housing outcomes, especially for those in the greatest need. This is a priority for our government, and we will continue to make smart investments to grow the economy and help the middle class.

[Housing, November 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that we have already taken steps to address concerns raised by the member. Indeed, I think all of us have been meeting with the FCM this week to hear about its concerns, and we are acting on them.

Once again, budget 2016 includes $2.3 billion in new investments over the next two years to address the most pressing housing needs in the short term. However, money is only a part of the solution. We need innovative new approaches to addressing persistent housing problems in communities across Canada, a point that the FCM has made loudly.

I would reiterate that we have consulted widely and we have listened. Housing is such an important component of our government's overall approach to strengthening the middle class, promoting inclusive growth for Canadians and helping to lift more people out of poverty.

[Housing, November 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga for her passionate advocacy for affordable and social housing.

As I have noted in the past, ensuring that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and they can afford is a key priority for the government. The member will know that the social infrastructure investments in budget 2016 are an integral part of the government's strategy to create a more inclusive society and stronger and more sustainable development.

The budget included $3.4 billion over five years for social infrastructure, including affordable housing, early learning and child care, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and community health care on first nation reserves. Of this amount, $2.3 billion will be invested in housing.

Among other measures, we are doubling federal funding under the investment in affordable housing program, a collaborative initiative with the provinces and territories to build, renovate, and provide critical affordable housing across Canada. This investment is expected to benefit more than 100,000 Canadian households.

Budget 2016 also provides $574 million over two years to repair and improve the energy and water efficiency of existing social housing units. The hon. member has mentioned these. It is a measure that the member for Hochelaga has called for in the House and that we have delivered.

Significant new funding is also being provided to increase affordable housing for seniors, to improve housing and living conditions in northern Inuit and first nation communities, and to build and renovate shelters for the victims of family violence.

I am pleased to say that the bilateral agreements have been signed with nearly all provinces and territories to deliver these new housing investments under the framework of the investment in affordable housing program. Federal funding is already flowing to these communities, including my own province of Manitoba.

As for resolving the issue of expiring long-term social housing agreements, budget 2016 provides up to $30 million to renew existing subsidies for all federally administered social housing projects with operating agreements expiring in the next two years. For projects administered by the provinces and territories, the doubling of federal funding for the investment in affordable housing program provides a significant source of funding for provinces and territories to extend subsidies for these social housing units. These investments are a transitional measure to bridge the gap for the next two years until a new approach can be implemented under a national housing strategy.

Speaking of the national housing strategy, we have recently completed an extensive four-month consultation process on how we can improve housing outcomes for Canadians. We wanted to hear from a broad range of stakeholders, because we recognize that the Government of Canada had neither all the answers nor all the tools needed to address persistent housing problems.

We sought the advice and input of key national housing stakeholders. We have held round tables outside Ottawa on housing challenges in the north and for indigenous communities in urban and remote communities. To ensure that we heard the voices of vulnerable people, focus groups were held with those who have been homeless or living in subsidized housing, newcomers to Canada, and persons with disabilities, among others. CMHC is also working closely with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada on parallel consultations for improving housing outcomes for our first nation communities.

On November 22, National Housing Day in Canada, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development released a report detailing what we heard during the consultations. I encourage the member for Hochelaga, and indeed all members, to read the report, which contains some great ideas on how the Government of Canada can work with other stakeholders to deliver the housing outcomes that Canadians deserve.

In the meantime, work is continuing on a national housing strategy, and we will keep the House informed as we move forward.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s claims that the new Canada child benefit will lift 60 000 Quebec children out of poverty, and question (a) specifically, the Canada child benefit, CCB, poverty reduction impacts were estimated through an ESDC micro-simulation model. The model is static in nature, which means that it does not take behavioural responses to policy changes into account. The impacts are estimated by employing a counterfactual method of calculating the effects of a change of policy on a family’s after-tax income. In short, this signifies that a family’s income can be compared under two scenarios (that is, scenario 1 under the existing child benefit system, and scenario 2, under a proposed child benefit system such as the CCB) to determine whether a family whose income would be below a given threshold under scenario 1 would no longer be in that situation under scenario 2. The poverty reduction impact is estimated as the difference between these two scenarios in the number of children below the low-income cut-offs, LICO. Using this approach, it was estimated that nearly 60,000 children would be lifted above the LICO in Quebec as a result of the CCB.

This estimate was produced with an ESDC micro-simulation model that was benchmarked to the child low-income population as it is known through Statistics Canada’s published data (the “Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics” is used as the foundational database for the ESDC model). At the time that the estimate was produced, the “Canadian Income Survey”, Canada’s official source of income data, reported a total number of 163,000 children living below the LICO in 2013. An assumption was made that the number of low-income children would remain unchanged beyond 2013. The system of child benefits that existed in 2013 was therefore chosen as the baseline child benefit system for purposes of the counterfactual analysis.

After doing this, it was estimated that the CCB would result in 60,000 children being lifted above the LICO.

With regard to (b), low income is measured by comparing a family or individual’s income for an entire year to a pre-set threshold such as the LICO for that year. Therefore, it is not possible to tell how many individuals or children are in poverty on a specific day.

The latest low-income statistics available from Statistics Canada are for the year 2014, which reported there were 105,000 children in Quebec below the LICO in 2014. Statistics for 2015 and 2016 are not yet available.

With regard to (c), as mentioned in the answer to question (b), low income is not measured as a specific point in time situation, but rather over an entire year.

Under the assumptions and methodology laid out in answer to question (a), that is, a starting point of 163,000 children below the LICO, reflective of the most recent data available at the time the estimate was performed, ESDC has estimated the number of children below the after-tax LICO to be 103,000 for 2017. The actual number of children in low income for that year will be known when the 2017 “Canadian Income Survey” will be released by Statistics Canada, which may not be until 2019. (For reference, the “Canadian Income Survey, 2014”, was released in July 2016.)

There is significant volatility in the figures of low-income children published by Statistics Canada from one year to the next. Estimates for 2017 are provided because it is the first full year of implementation of the CCB. However, the further in the future that estimates are made, the higher the uncertainty that is associated with these estimates becomes, and estimates beyond 2017 would not be sufficiently reliable at this point.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my hon. colleague for pointing that out. I will try not to make that error again.

Mr. Speaker, we are very grateful for the Province of Manitoba's leadership as well as of other governments across the country.

Does the hon. Minister of Social Development believe there is a national consensus on improving the CPP, not only among governments but also across the Canadian public, and should Parliament really reflect the will of Canadians and move this legislation to a standing committee expeditiously?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that Bill C-26 is important legislation. I think we can also all agree on the facts that nine out of 10 provincial governments are supporting this legislation. I wish the hon. opposition House leader was in the House to hear this—