Evidence of meeting #34 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was housing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I don't know if you have the figures, but to illustrate even more clearly how this situation affects poverty levels, I have to mention that insurance benefits are even lower in the case of young people and women.
Is it in fact true that young people and women are more poorly served by the current system?
Chair, National Council of Welfare
Yes. I just spoke at a conference in Nova Scotia with teachers. The topic they asked me to talk about was youth poverty. What's happening is extraordinary. We don't have a youth strategy either in this country, and it's indeed required.
If you were a poor individual, a poor mother, you could not afford, if you were on EI, to go and get 55% of something that's well below the poverty line, so that whole group of people.... It's okay for people with middle income and above, but poor Canadians really can't access it; they have to go back to work very quickly, because 55% of something below the poverty line is not very much money.
Consequently, we're hurting our ability to raise children. Children are getting hurt, because their mothers have to go back to work very quickly, and 55% of little is not very much. That's where we need to change these things and have access. That fund needs to be enriched, particularly for low-income people, and also so that they can use some of the tools of the EI program--the training, etc.--to be able to go back to work.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I see.
I also liked what you had to say in point 4 about how important it is for society to invest in day care services.
There are many reasons why this is so. Those who testify before the committee list a variety of reasons why the government should invest in day care. The arguments are piling up. Many point to the advantages of investing in this sector.
I'm pleased to see you present a new argument, namely the fight against poverty. You demonstrated that for a single mother, day care costs are often so exorbitant that her only choice, or almost, is to stay home and collect welfare. Ultimately, this entails a cost to our society.
Are these merely isolated cases, or is this a common problem that needs to be addressed?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Thank you very much, Sir. Your time has expired.
You have six minutes, Mr. Turner.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
Mr. Murphy, we're going to continue to pick on you for a bit.
Just about every economist I've ever heard of calls the GST a regressive tax. Do you know why they use the word “regressive”?
Conservative
Chair, National Council of Welfare
I think it's a tax that is maybe not so beneficial for the people.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
No, actually, the economic definition of a regressive tax is one that is blind to the economic circumstances of the person paying the tax, as opposed to a progressive tax, which people can afford to pay. So the more they can afford to pay, the more they pay.
The GST is a regressive tax. A regressive tax, which my friend John McCallum, the esteemed economist, would surely back me up on, is one that lower-income people pay as a proportionately higher proportion of their income than wealthy people do. That's a regressive tax. The GST is blind to whether you make $100,000 or $10,000 when you buy an article that has GST on it. You pay the same.
Therefore, would you not agree that lowering the GST is actually of more benefit to lower-income people than to higher-income people, which calls into question your statement that it doesn't affect low-income people because they don't buy big items? I'm interested in your response.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
It's not a matter of whether you agree with me or not. It's a statement of economic fact, is it not?
Chair, National Council of Welfare
You're asking for an answer and I'll give it to you. I'm just telling you where I sit and where the National Council of Welfare sits.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
I know where you sit. I'm just asking you about the regressive tax situation. Does this not benefit people, the fact that we have lowered the GST and that actually people who have lower income now pay less of their portion?
Chair, National Council of Welfare
No, it doesn't, because they're not buying the kinds of qualities and big items that people with more income would buy.
October 17th, 2006 / 10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
People buy the same item. If they buy the same item, rich or poor, they are buying the same item.
Quiet over there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Order. Excuse me.
First of all, Mr. Turner, I'm responsible for decorum; you are not.
Secondly, we'll have the same respect shown to Mr. Turner and the witness when they are engaging in a dialogue as we will expect when we are engaging in one. That will commence now.
Mr. Turner, continue.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
Thank you.
Let's abandon that point. We're not getting anywhere.
The budget we brought in removed 255,000 people from the tax rolls, generally people who make under $25,000. Is that a good thing?
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
Thank you. So we did a good thing. I'm very pleased with that.
Now, in the anti-poverty strategy you've outlined in your brief you have no costs attached to any of it. Have you guys worked out what the cost to the treasury would be of your platform here, your seven-point platform? Can you help us?
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
All right.
Judy, I have a couple of questions for you. You've mentioned a number of things that are very salient here in terms of our demographic time bomb. I think CARP has a lot of great proposals. I particularly like pension splitting, which is something I've been working on myself and which would be great to have this government consider.
I thought you were doing really well until the last minute or two of your presentation, when you gave us a few shots for cutting program spending. How on earth can we afford these just tax reforms for people over 50 if we don't trim program spending? Is it not a worthwhile thing for us to engage in?
Director, Government and Media Relations, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus
No.
First of all, I want to apologize that I did not introduce my colleague Bill Gleberzon, who came from Toronto to be here today, and I invite him to the table to help me answer the question.
In terms of the cuts that have just been announced, if it was based, as we understand, on value for money, then what are the alternatives that would be more cost-effective? That's what we're asking for. We're not disputing that perhaps it could be done better, but not to do it at all, whether it's museums, whether it's adult literacy, whether it's palliative care, these things are essential to people's quality of life, and if they are not provided with some of the essentials it's going to cost the system a lot more.