Finance Committee on May 30th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You have time for one more.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

We also spoke about the importance of infrastructure in this budget, and how we're going to make a historical investment in infrastructure. In previous years there was a lot of conversation about “shovel-ready” and “shovel-worthy”, and the bureaucracy associated with getting money on the ground and making sure there was a return on investment. The infrastructure minister, Minister Sohi, said the screen for P3 projects has been lifted for some of those projects. Can you elaborate on that's going to make it more efficient to get money on the ground?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We don't want anyone to take away the idea that we think P3s aren't a useful way to build infrastructure. It's just not necessarily useful in every single situation. We do recognize that it's something that slows down the process of moving forward on infrastructure projects.

To your question, which is around the speed of getting to infrastructure projects, I think I can identify a couple of issues, because we do want to get to things quickly.

In the case of the research and university projects, we had a short timeline because we knew that many of those projects were ready and willing to go. I believe the timelines have already passed for the submissions to be submitted to the infrastructure department, so we're getting going quickly on those.

In the federal infrastructure that we outlined, we also knew there were many projects ready and able to go, so those things can get going rapidly. By a change in the sharing of infrastructure projects from one-third federal, one-third provincial, and one-third municipal, to fifty-fifty, we actually create the conditions that allow projects to go forward more rapidly.

Those things, together with not requiring a P3 screen in every situation, will allow us to move forward more rapidly, and we hope to get things started that will have a long-term impact on the economy while providing some short-term gains in terms of immediate employment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You may have the final question, Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Would you like to ask a question?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

If the committee allows it, I'm grateful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The committee has time.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have three questions, but I'll forgo those questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Each take one. We don't want to wear out the minister. He has a long night ahead of him.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you. I'm grateful.

Mr. Minister, thank you.

I'm surprised by my opportunity to ask a question. I have many.

I have one that's buried down in the details and I'm preparing an amendment on it for this committee. I'm unhappy that the “long-tenured worker” definition that came out of the last government has been reinserted into changes in this budget for employment insurance. The “long-tenured worker” definition, which this omnibus budget bill brings into the EI act instead of getting rid of it, will prejudice younger workers and newer workers. I'm wondering if the government is open to an amendment to Bill C-15 that would allow the “long-tenured worker” definition to be pulled.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I would be happy to get back to you outside of this committee. I don't have the details on the long-tenured worker. I can tell you that we believe we've made measures to the EI system that will make significant improvements. If there is any more that we can say on long-tenured workers, I will get back to you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

One short one, Mr. Ouellette, and then we have everybody covered.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would have liked more time to talk, but thank you.

We often talk about how we're lifting 300,000 children out of poverty in this country through the CCB. We had at this committee Dr. Evelyn Forget, who testified about the benefits of the guaranteed income for all Canadians. In my estimation, the CCB serves as a form of guaranteed income for families. It allows them to make choices as they deem them necessary for their own lives.

Will families who are on reserve or off reserve who are receiving the CCB also be able to receive other benefits such as welfare without seeing those clawed back by provincial governments? Are you working to ensure provincial governments aren't going to be clawing those back so that we don't give with one hand and take with the other?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I think there are two separate questions here. The first question is about whether gaining welfare or anything else will have a clawback provision on the CCB. Unless their income is so high that they get into the zone where there is a clawback, the answer will be no.

The second part of the question is whether we will work together with provinces to ensure that these programs aren't clawed back by provinces. What I can tell you is that Minister Duclos is working with provinces to ensure that this is not the case, that provincial actions will not reduce the amount of money going to people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, everyone, for your questions. Thank you very much, Minister and officials, for being here about five minutes over your hour. Thank you. We appreciate your answering all the questions.

We will suspend for three or four minutes and then deal with officials on divisions 9, 12, and 14, which we didn't get done previously.

We are suspended for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think we'll have to say that the third time, Ms. Martel, is a dream, because you've been here three times and it looks as though you're going to get your say this time.

Just for members' information, we're dealing with those divisions and parts of the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, that questions had been raised on. Ms. Martel is here to deal with division 9 of part 4, which concerns the Old Age Security Act.

I think you have a statement to make, and then we'll go to questions.

Thank you.

[Nathalie Martel, Director, Old Age Security Policy, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Division 9 of part 4 of the budget implementation act proposes to amend the Old Age Security Act in two ways. First, it increases the guaranteed income supplement top-up by $947 per year for the lowest-income single pensioners and for pensioners whose spouse or common-law partner is not eligible for old age security benefits. This increase also applies to the top-up of the allowance for the survivor.

The change will be effective on July 1, 2016. It is estimated that close to 900,000 low-income seniors will benefit from this measure at a cost of $669 million in 2017-18, the first full year of implementation.

Second, it is proposed that the age of eligibility for the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement be restored to 65, and that the age of eligibility for the allowances be restored to 60. You will remember that the act was amended in 2012 in order to raise the age of eligibility for the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67, and from 60 to 62 for the allowances. The increase was supposed to be implemented gradually, from 2023 to 2029. Cancelling the increase in the age of eligibility will have no impact on the costs of the old age security program before 2023.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Martel.

I wasn't sure whether you said 900,000 people would benefit from the top-up.

[Nathalie Martel]

That's correct, yes. To be more accurate, it's 863,000 in the first year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Thank you.

Going to questions, does anybody have any questions on the old age security aspect in this division?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I have one quick one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

What is the average monthly benefit of this?

[Nathalie Martel]

The pension is $570 per month, and the guaranteed income supplement is based on income and marital status. If you have no income at all and are living alone—you're a single senior—it can be as high as $773 per month.