Finance Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It's still a significant amount you're getting, then, our $50 million in two years.

[David Baile]

And we applaud it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that, because I was a little confused after the presentation.

To Laurel or Caroline, I was intrigued, frankly, by the mention of the refundable tax benefit and the new working income supplement that was presented to us in the last session by the Toronto City Summit Alliance, I guess it was. I think C.D. Howe might be mentioned in there.

Do you agree with that approach?

[Laurel Rothman]

We certainly support the adult benefit, but I have to say that we haven't taken a position on the working income supplement. We have some concerns. Many of our labour partners have concerns about whether we would be basically subsidizing low wages.

Having said that, though, we also recognize--and I guess this is from my Toronto experience--that it may be what we have to do at some interim point, because lots of people can't get full-time jobs.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate that.

Caroline, do you have any comments to add at all?

[Caroline Di Giovanni]

I think that's really the direction. You have to continue the dialogue. We appreciate the opportunities for the discussions with business.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

I still have some time?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

A minute and a half.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have one quick question, and it has nothing to do with finance.

Mr. Fiddler, we had a presentation from Grand Council Chief Beaucage of the Union of Ontario Indians. In his presentation, or one of his presentations, one article was mentioned, and that's article 11. He did make the point to me afterwards that you have to take it all in...but article 11 says, “We shall work collectively towards the elimination of the Indian Act within 10 years.”

Is that the position of the council that you belong to as grand chief?

[Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler]

I haven't seen his manifesto or his document. All I'm saying here today is that we need resources now. If you look at our communities and the desperate situation they're in, I don't think we're there yet, to talk about federal legislation or the Indian Act. What we want is immediate assistance on what's happening in our communities today.

Earlier today the chief of Kashechewan held a press conference here in Toronto. Today marks the one-year anniversary of the evacuation of Kashechewan last fall. Nothing has been done to alleviate depression in that community, the reason they were evacuated in the first place. It is still in the same situation it was in a year ago.

They want resources. The commitments--the promises--made to them a year ago have not been honoured. That's what they're looking for. Most of our communities are in the same situation.

Maybe we can have a discussion about abolishing the Indian Act later on, once our communities are in a more stable situation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Grand Chief, we'll have it later on.

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. McCallum, for five minutes, please.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much.

We're coming to the end of a multi-week process, and I thank you all for being the last witnesses.

I notice that the majority of the witnesses here right now are in the social or aboriginal policy area. I'd be the first to admit that our government over the last twelve years was far from perfect in these areas, though I think we did make some progress. But I think one also has to acknowledge that this current government cancelled the Kelowna agreement, cancelled the child care agreements, cut the funding to literacy, and declared that housing and homelessness were purely provincial matters. I would say that those of you who are here for social or aboriginal concerns are facing a fairly uphill battle.

I'd like to offer the rest of my time to Mr. Fiddler if he'd like it, because these people on the committee have heard me for several weeks. In fact, I think they might have heard enough.

We haven't heard much about Kelowna. You know Paul Martin has his bill, it's going to go forward, and it could come back. I'd like you to take as much time as I have remaining, if you'd like, to explain to us what you think are the consequences of Kelowna not passing and what you think would be the implications if we could get it through.

[Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler]

Thank you for your question.

I was in Kelowna when that accord was signed and agreed to by all the parties that were there. I think there was a lot of optimism amongst first nation communities and the leadership across the country when that accord was signed, because we felt the resources that were committed in that accord would vastly improve the conditions that our communities were in. But here we are a little over a year later, and we still have not seen those resources.

Like I said earlier, today marks the one-year anniversary of the Kashechewan evacuation. The chief, who is here in Toronto today, held a press conference earlier this afternoon, reminding the government of the commitments that were made to his community with regard to improving their water treatment plant, the housing, and the infrastructure. Those promises have yet to be honoured.

I think we see Kelowna not as the big solution to all the issues we have, but as a good start if it can be revived or looked at again. It's part of the big push that I think we feel is needed to begin changing our communities around.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

To round it out, we'll go to Mr. Dykstra for five minutes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I need to comment. My good friend Mike Savage mentioned that.... In my riding anyway, per capita household income is one of the lowest in the province. Maybe in Cole Harbour, those who are looking for Cadillacs can purchase them, but I know it's a bit more difficult in the riding of St. Catharines. I'll leave that; maybe we can chat about it after.

One of the things I wanted to point out—and, Laurel, it comes from having the opportunity to listen to you speak about having been here time and time again—is that I get the impression from the presentation you made and the questions you've answered that for as long as you've come here, nothing has changed. I want to make sure that certainly wasn't the case, and I want to point out a couple of things before you comment.

Sure, we can talk about what more needs to be done. Sitting next to you is a former minister of community and social services who worked her heart and soul out for two years to try to make Toronto and the province of Ontario a better place for those who need a hand up and need some help.

And we're starting to do that; I think we did it in the budget: 655,000 people, based on this last budget, fall beneath the tax rolls now. And the $1,000 employment tax credit we've given, a credit that goes right on your tax filing when you send it in—nobody has mentioned that.

On the GST cut, Mr. Savage is right, I'm happy to say. A study by the organization called the National Anti-Poverty Organization found that lower-income earners pay 8% of the total GST and higher-income earners pay 4% of the GST. So those who earn less benefit, because they are purchasing in a much more consumer-based focus, are purchasing much more in the way of goods than those who are necessarily at the higher end of the income scale.

When you look at Stats Canada figures from 2006, this year, of those who are certainly lower-income earners, over 50% spend more than they actually earn in a year. They're obviously incurring a lot more debt, based on that, and obviously are spending more money. Therefore, the savings in GST is a benefit, on top of the fact that we actually have a $1,000 employment credit that you can put on.

We're providing $1.45 billion in social housing this year. We've put it in a third-party trust with the Province of Ontario. The premier announced that we're not going to spend that money in the province of Ontario until a whole bunch of other things happen.

So this government is committed. Do we need to do more? Do we need to take another step? Absolutely. Is there always going to be a need for addressing these issues in every federal budget? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean this government isn't trying; it doesn't mean in fact that everybody who's sitting in the House—all 308 folks—aren't trying to make it better.

I just want to make sure you understand that we come here trying, and we're working. We all represent people in our ridings who need help, whether they be higher income, middle income, or specifically lower income.

I really would love to hear from you that you understand this, that it's clear, and that there's a purpose for why we're trying to accomplish what we are.

[Laurel Rothman]

First of all, I'd like to say that I in no way intended to convey that nothing has happened. Just as all of you work hard in the public interest, we work hard in the public interest, if you will, and it's frustrating—I think particularly if you look at the numbers. I hope you had an opportunity to look at that chart in my brief that looks between 1980 and 2004.

With all due respect—and I think it was Mr. Wallace who asked me about the numbers concerning the impact of the child benefit—yes, there's been some impact, but unfortunately you get what you pay for, or I should say you get out what you put in. The reason you see better numbers—and I am willing to say “the numbers”, because it was Charlie Coffey from the Royal Bank who once said to me, “If you don't count it, it doesn't count”, and I haven't forgotten that....

If you will, we have single-digit numbers of poverty in European countries, including the most competitive ones, such as Norway and Sweden, because they have both higher public investments and a higher wage floor—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Those are also countries with lower corporate tax rates than our country.

[Laurel Rothman]

That's true, I recognize.

Let me just say to you, I certainly recognize that members of the House take the issue seriously. I don't happen to agree with all of your interpretations of what your government has done, but yes, things have happened.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you Ms. Rothman. I appreciate it. We're going to leave it on that note.

We've been consulting over 400 groups, from what I understand. We did the same thing last year. We had a different formula this year. I think it worked. It was interesting that a panel like this is a little more interesting to have a discussion with when you have people from different backgrounds, different interests; it puts things more into perspective. I think Mr. Dykstra hit a couple of chords on his last—I'm not going to say tirade, but on his last question.

I'm going to leave it at that. I want to thank everybody for appearing. I don't know whether Brian thanked everybody for allowing us to come to Toronto, so I'd like to put that on the record. A lot of MPs here are from Toronto.

Before I let everybody go, I want to not only thank my colleagues and thank the chairman, but also the people who make these things happen: of course, the interpreters, the sound or logistics people—or no, the logistics people are in the front—the clerks, the research staff, and the logistics people. On Sunday, when they left, they were supposed to have a three- or four-hour ride from Ottawa to St. John's, and I think it took twenty hours for them to get to St. John's.

Have a good, safe ride back, and we'll see you guys on Tuesday.

We adjourn.