Finance Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, I just want to inform you that we have rectified the IT with Carol Anne Hilton. She is on with us now, if members have questions for Ms. Hilton.

We are moving to the Bloc, with Monsieur Ste-Marie for seven and a half minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today, not only for their presentations, but for being so patient while we were voting in the House.

My questions are for Mr. Prud'homme of Réseau FADOQ. But first I'd like to thank Ms. Tassé-Goodman for her clear and informative presentation.

Before moving on to my questions, I'd like to remind Mr. Arnold of the following. Like Mrs. Chatel, I'd like to ask him to suggest to the committee some possible approaches to counteract tax evasion and tax avoidance. We would be very grateful to him. There have, of course, been suggestions from economists, including Mr. Saez and Mr. Zucman. I would imagine that we could do some cross-comparisons. We are looking forward to any suggestions you might have, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Prud'homme, I'd like to begin by discussing the circumstances of many low-income seniors. Those who receive the guaranteed income supplement were unable to work to the same extent during the pandemic. They therefore applied for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the CERB. Because the rules were vague, they assumed the CERB was employment income. As this was not the case, their benefits were cut.

From the beginning, or even before, during and after the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois and several other parties asked the government to correct this idiotic situation.

In December, the Minister of Finance gave her economic update and said that the problem would be dealt with. When public servants are asked, they say that the payment will be made in May. When I look at the bill, it says the situation will be corrected in July, this summer. We know that all of these people are in difficult financial straits.

What do you think of this situation, and the timeline in particular?

[Danis Prud'homme, Chief Executive Officer, Provincial Secretariat, Réseau FADOQ]

Thank you for the question.

It's a very important question. Over 30% of seniors aged 65 years and over receive the guaranteed income supplement. On average, they receive $20,000 or less per year.

Of course if that has an impact on calculations for the following year, it is taken into account. But what it means is an immediate decline in their income. Not only are these people vulnerable because of their low income, but any additional decrease in income means they will be living below the poverty line.

The bill is all very well, but it won't come into effect until July 2022, if everything goes according to schedule.

Since the implementation of the CERB, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the CRB and the various other measures since 2021, seniors will have had a decrease in their income and were penalized.

The problem has not been corrected and people are short of cash. This has repercussions, because they are no longer able to pay for their medicines and food. So it's safe to say that it also had an impact on their health. If it's not dealt with, this problem will generate other costs afterwards.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

As I understand it, the fact that the government is not responding quickly to the situation will lead to months of additional hardship for many low-income seniors.

There were some things you wanted to see with respect to the Canadian credit for family caregivers.

Could you explain these again?

[Danis Prud'homme]

Once again, thanks for the question.

According to the statistics, caregivers are mainly women aged over 50 years, or even closer to 60 years.

As for the tax credit, income generated by these people is low. Needless to say, if a tax credit is non-refundable, caregivers cannot benefit if their income is in the lowest tax bracket.

For a tax credit to be useful to those who need it most, it must be refundable. A non-refundable tax credit provides absolutely nothing to low-income earners.

With a refundable tax credit, people would receive a cheque that would help them out of their precarious financial circumstances.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That's very clear. Thank you very much.

You suggested the introduction of a career extension tax credit.

Can you explain that again? Please be brief.

[Danis Prud'homme]

This tax credit was introduced in Quebec at least a few years ago. We succeeded in having it enhanced, by lowering the eligibility age and increasing the amount.

Owing to labour shortages in just about every field across Canada, including the health sector, we believe that certain benefits should be made available to workers, not only to keep them working longer, but to bring them back into the labour force.

This career extension tax credit is significant, because people would see the positive side of continuing to work rather than retiring.

Two factors are involved.

First of all, some people have to continue to work. This kind of tax credit would enhance their income.

Secondly, the tax credit could encourage people who are thinking about retirement to stay in the labour force just a little bit longer.

The tax credit could be combined with another measure. In connection with the various contributions that workers have to pay, we could take this further and make adjustments that would lead to the elimination of contributions after a certain age.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Because of the labour shortages, many seniors in my riding and other parts of Quebec are telling me that they'd like to go back to work a few days a week, except that when all is said and done they wouldn't have any extra money in hand. It would amount to volunteer work. We have a possible solution to help offset labour shortages.

The inflation rate is high at the moment. People often say that seniors are going to pay the price because they receive fixed pensions. Among other things, you are asking for an increase in the guaranteed income supplement.

Could you talk to us about the possible repercussions of inflation on seniors, particularly among the less well off who receive the guaranteed income supplement, and the importance of enhancing these benefits?

[Danis Prud'homme]

Thank you for the question.

As I mentioned, people who receive the guaranteed income supplement are the least well off. They live near the poverty line. When the cost of living goes up quickly, people earning an income can handle some of the extra costs, including groceries. For those receiving the guaranteed income supplement, it's difficult to stretch things any farther, if I can put it that way, in terms of money.

During the last election campaign, the promise was that the guaranteed income supplement would be increased by $500 a year for those aged 65 years and over living alone and by $750 for those aged 65 years and over who are spouses. It's very important to make adjustments because of the current situation, and also to offset all the additional expenses generated by the pandemic.

I would even like to extend the old age security increase to people aged 65 to 74 years. An increase would be welcome for them too. They really need it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We've got the message.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

We are moving to the NDP.

MP Blaikie, you will be the last member to have questions for our witnesses. You have seven and a half minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Hilton, for joining us. I'm sorry that technical difficulties meant we didn't get a chance to hear an opening statement from you.

I do have a couple of questions, one a little more specific and one more general.

I'm not sure if you were able to hear the committee proceedings prior to joining the call. In testimony earlier, there was some talk about foreign capital investment in Canada and natural resource development. We had heard some suggestion that new rules around natural resource development were making it so that people didn't want to invest in Canada.

Would you like to comment on the extent to which respect for indigenous rights and title and land rights and welcoming indigenous people to the table as real partners in natural resource development in Canada might create a climate with more certainty for investors on projects where there are willing partners?

Then, more generally, because we didn't get an opening statement from you, I would like to give you my time to offer up your recommendations on the budget, particularly with any kind of focus you can give us on how budgetary measures could help to empower indigenous people in Canada, and help them take their seat at the economic table and grow the economy.

I will leave it to you to answer those two questions with the time remaining.

Thank you.

[Carol Anne Hilton, Chief Executive Officer, Indigenomics Institute, As an Individual]

Thank you.

There have been technical difficulties. I am coming from B.C. today, so thank you for having me.

In regard to your first question, my focus area in particular is bringing the foundation of a $100-billion national indigenous economy to Canada's awareness and the realization that this is happening in spite of the Indian Act.

What does it take to get ready for the $100-billion indigenous economy? My work is essentially realizing this growing economic strength of indigenous people, where we're seeing significant participation in equity ownership of major projects to begin to follow the trends in terms of investment into clean energy, foreign investment, what you are suggesting within even the natural resource sector and really beginning to pay attention to the structure of indigenous economic design.

My work has been building this concept of what is beyond Indian Act economics, that every single Canadian in this country has been impacted negatively through the concept of Indian Act economics, to be able to place into our reality the requirement for indigenous economic design and to experience the structure of that absence. I suggest that the growth of the indigenous economy cannot exist solely within programs and services. It needs to exist within—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I apologize, Ms. Hilton. Could you raise your microphone to around nose level? It's for our interpreters.

Thank you.

[Carol Anne Hilton]

Essentially there's a need for understanding that the growth of the indigenous economy is not going to happen in programs and services. It needs tools. It needs structures. It needs design. If we look back into the budgets to understand where we're seeing tools, structures and resources for design, there are examples like the $150-million entrepreneurship fund and initiatives like the 5% indigenous procurement target.

To the opposite of that, if we look to this last budgetary earmark of $18 billion to invest in the close of the socio-economic gap, it does not in itself establish the cause of the socio-economic gap. Therefore, I suggest that essentially the absence of indigenous economic design is not supporting a contribution to Canada's GDP or the overall experience of indigenous economic strength.

To your question, particularly around foreign investment and the environment around the natural resource sector, we need to balance this concept of the cost of doing nothing and the risk of doing nothing to be able to bring into focus a new environment of legal and economic balance. Historically, there has been an overemphasis on the legal relationship and an underemphasis on the economic relationship. We need to provide an environment of certainty that supports understanding what an environment, a global environment of investment in the Canadian economy, looks like. That certainty comes from the strength of the indigenous economic relationship and our participation within the economy itself.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

If you had a few recommendations for the finance committee in our deliberations, recommendations we might make to government as to what should be in the budget, whether they're spending items or whether they're legislative items, what are some of the things you would have us consider?

[Carol Anne Hilton]

Yes. Absolutely. I established a concept called the indigenomics economic mix, 12 levers to support the economic design of the indigenous economy. Some of those levers include entrepreneurship, equity, capital, clean energy, procurement and trade, to begin to look at those levers of indigenous economic design and invest into those structures, moving outside of the emphasis on particularly programs and services.

If we look at the existing budget, when we reflect back on the economic...the fiscal equation doesn't make sense. We see 2% engaged within economic development dollars that reach indigenous communities. To balance that, of course we can see that lack of balance within the socio-economic gap. To bring focus means essentially there's an overemphasis on the social and an underemphasis on the economic. To look at investing into structures, investing into systems and tools, and convening economic space particularly for indigenous-led leadership—that's what we're looking at in an environment of the implementation of UNDRIP. It's about indigenous-led economic institutions that support and bring a specific narrative of indigenous economic strength, moving away from the Indian Act itself, and looking at indigenous economic activity as participation within the larger GDP itself.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam, thank you very much.

I'm looking to the chair, and I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, MP Blaikie, that's the time.

Thank you, Ms. Hilton. We're so glad you were able to join us and share with us your remarks as well as your answers to those questions.

I want to thank all the members, because we worked very collaboratively here to be able to provide the time for witnesses to give their remarks to all of the questions, even working through the vote that we had in Parliament.

On behalf of all the members of this committee, the clerk, the analysts, all the staff, the interpreters and others who make this happen, we want to thank you very much for coming before us and helping us with our pre-budget consultation and informing our report.

Thank you very much, everybody.

We're now adjourned.