Human Resources Committee on April 29th, 2008

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Last year, we did not have a word to say in these matters, and so this has nothing to do with what we are doing this year. All right.

I will ask you another question, because I only have five minutes left. I want to follow up on the question put by my colleague, Ms. Gourde, and which you probably did not have the time to answer.

In the 2007 budget, you said that you were transferring an envelope of $500 million for the labour market for youth, working senior citizens and handicapped persons to the provinces and territories. I would like to know where these agreements stand today.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

No, we said two things in the budget: one is $500 million into new labour market agreements; secondly, we would discuss the feasibility of transferring some of that programming to the provinces. We're still negotiating with Quebec and other provinces regarding the labour market agreements and we'll continue to have discussions regarding the feasibility of transferring some of this other programming, but we're really not at a stage yet where we can say we have reached any conclusions at all.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

If I understand you correctly, and if the interpretation was accurate, you mean to say that there has not been any agreement because you are asking Quebec for things that Quebec does not want to give you because it wants to have its share of the $500 million, which is the money promised to the provinces, with full compensation and without any obligation to make an exhaustive report to the federal government. Is the problem caused by the litigation between the federal government and Quebec regarding the three categories of workers that Quebec wants to patriate along with the money, and without granting the federal government any say in the matter?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have, but Minister, you can answer the question.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'll answer very briefly.

Every time we sit down with a jurisdiction, they have things they want and we have things we want. There are still five jurisdictions outstanding, and we'll continue to negotiate with them until we can reach a conclusion. In the end, it's in the interest of both the provinces and certainly the people they serve to have that money. We'll keep working with them. We'll make a good faith attempt, as I'm sure they will, to reach an agreement and ensure that we're both meeting standards that are important to the people we serve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madam Bonsant.

We're now going to move to Mr. Cuzner, for five minutes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Minister, for making yourself available for the full two hours today. The committee appreciates that.

With where the economy is going, I think we can agree around the table that the next months ahead could be very trying for many Canadians, certainly for seniors in this country. When we see increases in the staples--in fuel costs, in the cost of food--it is our seniors who are going to be impacted going forward. Many seniors will have to make a decision as to whether they will fill their oil tank, fill their cupboard, or fill their prescription. It will be difficult in days ahead.

What we see is a differing in ideology. I think it was in the 2004 Liberal budget that we were able to invest and make an increase in the amount of GIS for seniors. I think it was up to about $800 for a couple. I know we pushed hard for that. It was the first increase they had experienced in probably 12 years. We would have liked to see even more.

In this budget, the only focus on the guaranteed income supplement is the allowance for the amount that one is able to earn. Really, that impacts such a small number of Canadians. They refer to it as “modest”. When it's impacting about 4% of Canadians--and I know those numbers are probably rounded up--are we not failing 96% of Canadians?

Of the 20 of us around this table, if we were GIS recipients, at 4%--let's round it up to 5%--only one of us would be impacted by this. So it's not that great a program.

Wouldn't you believe, Minister, that it would have been better to go to that cabinet table and fight for further funding, for more money for the guaranteed income supplement?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

I agree that the changes we've made won't hit everyone, but it's not the only thing we're doing. I think that's an important point to make.

Not only has the guaranteed income supplement gone up 7% over the last two years, over and above the cost of living increases, but we've put in place, as you point out, this increase in the exemption for the guaranteed income supplement.

We've cut the GST twice. Remember, the GST is the only tax that many people with low income pay. So that's an important saving for many people.

We've retroactively put in place tax relief. We've raised the basic personal exemption and the married exemption. We've also lowered the basic rate. We've also introduced income splitting. We've raised the age credit, and we've raised the pension credit.

We've done a lot of things to leave more money in the pockets of seniors.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Minister, you'll appreciate the fact, too, that the GST is a consumption tax, and these people really aren't high-end consumers in this country. So there may be a cut in tax, but it's all relative, isn't it?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Yes, that's right, but if they're not paying any income tax, reducing income taxes won't help. So this is a help to everyone. A few hundred dollars to someone on the low end is a significant amount of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move now to Mr. Brown.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

I'm just following up on one of the comments about seniors. I can tell you, after going around my riding quite a bit in the last number of days as many of our seniors are doing their income tax, that those who do receive pension income are very happy now that they can split it. It's making a big impact on many people who are enjoying the benefits of that particular financial move.

Being from Ontario, Minister, I know there has been some concern about housing funding. Maybe you could enlighten us a little bit about some of the things we've been hearing about some of that funding being unused.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

The federal government stepped up with a lot of money in the last couple of years to support affordable housing. We know that about 40% of the funding allocated to Ontario under the affordable housing initiative hasn't been used yet. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it's one of the reasons I think we have to have a look at whatever form future support for housing takes, because we want to make sure the money is spent to help vulnerable people. That's the whole point.

The other point I would make is that in some cases we offer cost-shared programming, like the residential rehabilitation assistance program. Some provinces don't participate in it, and Ontario is one of them. We have to make sure when we offer programming that we do so in a way to ensure that we leverage support from all our partners, because the point is to serve vulnerable Canadians. If you can't leverage that support, then you're not getting the best value you can get for the people who need the help the most.

I appreciate that everyone has ideas and helpful criticism on how we can deal with these things, but if you're going to criticize, I think it's incumbent upon you to make sure you step up to the plate and provide the support you should be providing from your level of government as well.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you.

I know there were some questions a little earlier about the new student grant program. Minister, I'd like to get a little bit of clarification. How many students will this new program help? How many more students is it going to help than the program the former Liberal government had?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Right now under the CMSF, about 140,000 people a year get support through the current study grants and access grants, these kinds of things. Under the new program, 245,000 people will benefit. They will know ahead of time whether or not they'll receive it. In other words, if you're a low- or middle-income student and you apply to go to school and are accepted, and you meet the income criterion, you will get that funding and you will know that ahead of time. So this will help improve access, which I think has to be the goal. Not only that, you'll get it for every year you're in school. So if you're going to college for a couple of years, you'll get it both years. If you're going to university for four years, you'll get it for all four years. If you're a low-income student, four years of funding at $250 a month while you're in school, that's $8,000 you know you're going to get, and that's a big bite out of any student loans you might have had to take out otherwise.

I think it's terrific. We've had great support from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and other student organizations that have really lauded this approach and believe this is an important step forward. I hope my colleagues in the official opposition will see the wisdom of this and will support it when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

I have one minute left.

Minister, back in the days when we were in opposition, we stated that we would fix the employment insurance account and make it more transparent and more accountable. I know the government has taken some action on this front. Maybe you could tell us about that.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'd be happy to.

Obviously when we were in the opposition I was certainly a critic of how that fund was being utilized. We have made very important changes so that workers and employers know, going forward, that when they pay these funds towards employment insurance, they will be used for employment insurance. That's important not just because it means that any extra premiums will come back in the form of lower premiums down the road, but it's important in terms of restoring faith in government.

For a lot of people, I think that faith was fundamentally undermined. Going forward, I think you'll see people who have much more confidence in the system than they've had in the past. We've seen all kinds of people who came out strongly in support of this, including unions, small business organizations such as the CFIB, and the Conseil du patronat du Québec and many others. They've all come out strongly in favour of this, and I think that speaks volumes. They're the people who deal with it, and they know precisely how it didn't work in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're now going to move to Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

I just want to go back for a second to the whole housing issue and the fact that as we move into our study on poverty, and as I listen to groups that have been working with those who have been living in poverty for years in this country, the biggest and first request is for more money for housing and affordable housing. If Stats Canada indicates later this week that this growing gap between the rich and the poor is driving the price of housing up and out of the ordinary Canadian's reach, then we really have to step up to the plate and do something.

I know organizations have come forward, such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to indicate that for them the first priority is more housing. We're now seeing the deterioration and, in some instances, the destruction of some of the affordable housing that we built in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, with no money to replace it. A lot of that is becoming gentrified. It's becoming high-end condos, and we have a growing difficulty.

You do have a vehicle that you could use. I heard the question and the answer to “What's Ontario doing with the federal money?” That's a frustration for all of us who want to see that money flowing. But you do have the co-op housing sector that you could use very effectively, and it has been used in the past. You could put money in and have it flow through to develop some very creative, unique, and I think very effective housing for all kinds of people with low to modest incomes.

In line with that, there has been some focus lately, by you and others, on this experiment in Portland, Oregon, of rent supplements for homelessness. There was a CBC documentary and a connection to Victoria, where they have a huge problem, where in fact this question of the affordability of housing is paramount, where hotels have switched to residences. Portland apparently benefited from a national program with substantial federal money invested. I heard on that report a Victoria councillor lamenting that Ottawa has not recognized and in fact isn't giving the national leadership that's required there.

You've been to Portland. You, from what I understand, are saying it's not something that the Canadian government sees as doable or within your purview. Could you maybe talk to us a little bit about that?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Sure.

Let me just say that I should correct the record. One of the things that were asked of me is whether we could implement the Portland model in Canada. There is no reason we can't do some of the things they do, but Portland was very unique. They had a 7% vacancy rate, and they used a lot of the funding they received to provide rent supplements to help people step into private rental stock. That's not an option that's open to places like Victoria certainly, or many cities, because as you said, as the economy grows and people are more prosperous, not only are they building more and more expensive housing in a lot of places, but many apartments are being converted to condominiums and this kind of thing.

I'm simply pointing out that you can't necessarily transfer directly what works in one area to another area. A lot of times it's local solutions to local problems.

I think we need to figure out what gets results. In some cases that means building new units; in other cases it means taking advantage of existing housing stock, maybe with rent supplements. It may be more in Atlantic Canada that you see existing stock where you still have those opportunities, and maybe to some degree in smaller centres you still have those opportunities. In other places we'll have to find ways to build, but then there are questions about how you do that. I think we need to be creative and consider all kinds of ideas when it comes to that.

At any rate, let me affirm that I am concerned about this. That's the reason I went to Portland. I've been to the downtown east side; I've been across the country, many times, looking at some of these things. The conclusion I have come to is that not only is this complicated, but it does require people of good will--and this is what the people in Portland emphasized--to come together in partnerships to try to address these issues and find the best possible solutions to suit that particular jurisdiction.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

As you know, we're already into this study on poverty. We've been waiting for it for quite some time, and I'm very happy that it's happening.

The first quest is to try to figure out a measurement of poverty that everybody can agree on. Perhaps the government might decide there's something that we can hold up, look at, and hold people accountable.

The market basket measure is one that is fairly popular, not with everybody, but it certainly works to some degree. We're led to believe that your department has done a review of that from the 2003-04 measure that we're using in order to update it, and that in fact it has been ready for several months. We need that information here. It would be very helpful in our discussions, as we grapple with this issue of measurement.

Is it ready? What's the holdup? When can we see it released so we can use it?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I have to say that I'm not quite sure I'm familiar with what you're talking about. But the deputy minister says that if you want officials to brief the committee on what we are doing on market basket measure--if that's what you're asking; I'm not quite sure, Tony--we'd be happy to do that.

In general, we don't have an official measure of poverty in Canada. But I think the market basket measure has a lot to commend it, because obviously an income of $1,500 in a rural part of the country typically goes a lot further than it does in downtown Toronto.

I think costs are an important part of the calculation when you figure out what people's real standard of living is. I think a market basket measure has a lot to commend it when you're trying to figure out, first of all, how many people are struggling, and secondly, whether or not you're making progress in helping people get out of poverty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Martin.

We're now going to move to our third and final round. We have Mr. Savage, for five minutes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

And Mr. Cuzner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Of course. Five plus one.