Evidence of meeting #29 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was poverty.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
Thank you, Ms. Gibeau.
Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.
Monsieur Komarnicki, please.
Mr. Komarnicki, you have the floor.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think my question is both very important and very difficult.
I'd like to say, though, that Monsieur Mulcair is playing a dangerous game with the truth when he talks about statistics, and I must take some time to make a few comments to correct what I think are some inaccuracies.
The statistics clearly show that of those who pay into employment insurance and subsequently lose a job without cause, about 80% to 82% are actually entitled to receive benefits. Now, we need to do better, but those are the statistical facts we get from reliable authorities.
There may be a disagreement on that, and that's fair, but I don't think it's right to play the game that Mr. Mulcair would like to play.
Secondly, I'd like to talk a little bit about the universal child tax credit. I know that when I stopped in a small community at a coffee shop and asked some moms what they were receiving for their children under six, it was interesting that around that little coffee table there was $9,600 being received in that very small community that they found very useful.
Unlike the musings of Mr. Mulcair in terms of taking that right away, as you would suggest, many young moms have approached me and are appreciative of it. I think we may need to do more, and I'll accept that, but taking away things from people is not something I would prefer to do.
In terms of child care spaces, I think that's a fair comment. We need to do more there. We are transferring $250 million annually to the provinces toward child care spaces. Indeed, in my province of Saskatchewan, the budget recently indicated 1,000 new spaces, and we heard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, that their province was going to create 1,050 additional spaces. I think those are good forward steps and we need to continue in that direction, perhaps increase them, but I would be loath to take any benefits away from anyone.
With respect to the Canada social transfer and education, it's true. It's fair to say that back in the Martin years, $25 billion was cut to the transfers to the provinces, to the Canada social transfer. There's no question that the most vulnerable would be affected by that transfer cut. But I can tell you that since we've taken government we have increased transfer payments to the provinces year to year. We've provided $350 million per year in new funding in 2009-10, increasing to $430 million in 2012-13, with respect to education. In fact, the post-secondary education portion of the Canada social transfer went up by 40%. It's not an insignificant amount. I agree that we may be able to do more, but those are the facts on the ground.
Of course, there were a number of grants for low-income and middle-income Canadians of $250 per month and $150 respectively, which is non-repayable, and there have been other groups that have been targeted. I think education is important and therefore we need to do that.
There may be some question of whether the transfers to the provinces should be more conditional or not. I know we heard a lot about that, with people asking, when we transfer the moneys over an increase year over year, is it going to where it should? That's probably a fair question. I know there are agreements between provinces and the federal government, and maybe those can be pursued as well.
Another statement I want to take some issue with is that nothing is being done with respect to older workers, because there are things being done for them. I want to go through them somewhat, and the employment insurance--
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
I want to remind you that there are witnesses and you might want to save some of your time to ask them questions. On the other hand, to be perfectly fair, I think it is really regrettable—and we're not including this in your time, Mr. Komarnicki—that the political aspect of it has been brought out here this morning.
I do understand that you want to answer this, because someone else has opened the door and you want to shut it. I simply want to remind you that there are witnesses--
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I appreciate that, Madam Chair, accepting the fact that I've heard what everybody has said and I'll take that into consideration, plus their briefs, which we'll read in a short period of time. I can ask them a question or two, but it's important to set the record straight with respect to some of the things that have been said.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I appreciate that, but it's not losing time; it's actually using time to put the proper context around what we're discussing. And we've heard from many witnesses. I appreciate hearing from these witnesses and from their briefs. But some of these issues have to be addressed.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you. I don't accept the chair's premise on this.
So there has been $60 million a year spent as a targeted initiative for older workers, $500 million for helping long-tenure workers get additional training for a longer period of time, $500 million to help those who aren't able to qualify for employment insurance, and a number of billions of dollars put into skills upgrading and training. The total amount spent on employment insurance through increased benefits and extending the benefits is about $4.5 billion.
Having said that, there may be room for improvement, and I'll accept that, but I think it's not fair to say that nothing has been done. Perhaps more needs to be done, and obviously that's why we're listening to you and listening to what you have to say, but I think it's important to acknowledge what has been done.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
Do you wish to address witnesses? You have time.
Thank you.
Ms. Boucher, I am sorry but I really cannot give you the floor since no question was addressed to you. However, there are two other people who want to ask questions. If a question is addressed to you, you can take the time to answer it and I may give you time at the end to react.
Ms. Minna.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. How much time do I have, Madam Chair? Just very quickly.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you.
I will say very briefly that with respect to pay equity, every single woman in our caucus and our members support proactive pay equity legislation. We spoke against it. You know, having another election three months after the last one wouldn't have resolved the problem, but we will be introducing proactive pay equity legislation if and when we form a government. That is a commitment that our leader has made and that I'm making to you here today. I'll leave it at that, because I don't want to go on with this.
I really would like to get back to some of our discussion earlier. I want to expand a little bit on Madame Gibeau's response earlier, and also Madame Boucher's, with respect to investing in services as opposed to tax measures. It's a big issue with me only because some governments tend to use tax measures a lot to provide social programs, which I think always miss women, especially, and low-income Canadians, in my view.
So I understand very clearly the $1,200 you've already mentioned, in addition to the child tax benefit. We've had presentations from many others on the child tax benefit, which could be increased to $5,000. The would-be fund should be strengthened in some way. The early learning and child care program--quality, accessible, and all of that--would be another, as well as a national housing strategy, the things that we'd actually create. Could you give me, because of your experience, some other suggestions that would take away from what I would call the tax structure to invest in people and families, which would help us?
The question is to Madame Boucher and Madame Gibeau and any others, because they were the ones originally who were talking about this.
11:45 a.m.
Social and Fiscal Policies Analyst, Union des consommateurs
I would simply like to clarify something because, Mr. Komarnicki, you opened a door earlier that I would like to close. We are not against tax measures—quite the opposite; we are against the fact that certain tax measures, such as non-refundable tax credits, or some other tax expenditures, do not apply to everyone. Everyone is not able to benefit from them. However, as regards the Canadian Child Tax Benefit, I certainly have no desire to see that program disappear. It is a program that is open to all women and all families, based on income. So, everyone is entitled to it. Our comment really had to do with non-refundable tax credits that target certain categories of people and exclude others. That is the clarification I wanted to make. In our opinion, the tax system is an ideal instrument that governments should be using to progressively redistribute wealth based on individual income. I just wanted that to be clear.
11:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
I think Ms. Gibeau already answered the question. At the same time, I believe the federal government should be considering the dynamic in the different regions, as regards the whole issue of daycare centres. What has been developed is quite extraordinary and means that services are available at a lower cost. That money should have been given back to Quebec so that it could create additional spots. This also allows women to re-enter the labour market and escape poverty, because they are able to put their children in daycare. Also, it gives us an opportunity to raise our standard of living. It is important to understand that.
It looks as though governments think they are taking that money out of their own pocket and are thus a little reluctant to help out. However, these are not expenditures; they are investments and that is how they must be seen.
In terms of post-secondary funding, this is an investment, not an expenditure. Giving money to create daycare centres is not an expenditure, it is an investment. Once that has been understood… We contribute extensively, through our income and other taxes, to ensure that this money can be fairly redistributed, rather than in ventures such as weapons. Those are political choices, but they are not the choices we should be making in terms of our investments. We do not support those choices; we support a more just, fairer society. Ms. Chevrier said there are not different categories of poor people, and I agree with her. There are simply poor people and we must support them.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I must tell our witnesses here today that on behalf of Mr. Mulcair, I apologize for his partisan outburst. I can tell you from my past meetings--we've had 29 in total--that Monsieur Lessard, Madame Beaudin, Ms. Minna, Mr. Savage, who isn't here today, Madame Folco, Mr. Komarnicki, and a few of my other colleagues have refrained from the partisan comments because we know that partisan comments don't address the issues. I can also say that a few of Mr. Mulcair's colleagues who have filled in when Mr. Martin is unavailable have refrained from them as well.
I find it regrettable that this has been brought in here today, because we really do have our hearts in the right place to listen to what you have to say in order to put a good report forward for the government.
With that being said, I would like to say, Janine, that I really appreciate your comment today about the financial literacy that your group provides. I feel that is a gap in our educational system. Right from high school on into university and college, we teach our young students many things, and financial literacy is not one of them. So I appreciate the fact that your group does do that.
One theme that we have heard from various witnesses is the fact of the transfers to provinces and the regrettable fact that when those dollars are transferred to the provinces, those dollars are perhaps not invested in the areas of greatest need. You've heard that in both Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick. I just wanted to ask the panel today on their thoughts about transfers, because we know they have been increased. But if those dollars are invested in specific areas, such as affordable housing and income supports and so forth....
Madame Gibeau, I think you made a comment about that, so maybe you'd like to respond to that.
11:50 a.m.
Social and Fiscal Policies Analyst, Union des consommateurs
We talked today about what the federal government can do to fight poverty. I said that provincial transfers must be increased. That way, whether the money is invested properly or not, a provincial standing committee will be able to get involved and talk about it.
Your colleague mentioned earlier that provincial transfers had been increased since the Conservative government took office. That is why I said we have to keep on doing that. At the same time, there is a lot of catching up to do, and that is precisely the reason why I am urging you to take action in that regard. Since 1994, transfers have been cut back dramatically. Transfers to the provinces must continue to increase significantly, so that the provinces can continue to do their work in terms of social programs.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I can appreciate your comments. The fact is that we've heard from other witnesses that perhaps the provinces weren't directing their money to the correct areas. That's why I asked the question about acts or agreements in it.
To conclude, our April job numbers were very positive: 36,000 jobs were added. The great news for la belle province was that 22,000 of them were in Quebec.
We noticed that one of the areas of growth in jobs was older workers. I just wondered if any of our panellists had any comments or ideas about the best practices around why that has occurred, because that's definitely great news for the province of Quebec.
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Jobs are being created, but we are still experiencing a crisis and I would not like to hear people saying that it is over. It is important to be very aware of what is going on. The entire forest industry in Quebec is still very seriously affected and the federal government has invested very little in that sector, unlike what was done in Ontario in the automotive industry.
Ms. Folco, I had the feeling that the first Conservative MP who spoke had asked a question. He said the government had invested a lot of money in training and skills development through the EI Program. But, in terms of older people, the problem is not what is being invested in training. We are not questioning that; rather, we are questioning what is being done for people aged 55 and over, the people we—colloquially—call the hard core. These are individuals who are not capable of going back to school, who are 55 or 56 years old and cannot retire yet, for all kind of reasons. They are functionally illiterate, or pretty well, and now, even though they have always been machinists and have been doing the same work since the age of 15, they are being asked to retrain. There are very few people in that situation. In a company where 100 people are laid off, there may be one or two of them. They are the ones we are talking about. Since the federal government cancelled POWA, nothing has been done for them. That is what I am talking about and what the Quebec unions are talking about.