Human Resources Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Ken Battle]

That's right.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It broadens and deepens this. You're a great fan of that aspect of the budget, I take it?

[Ken Battle]

Yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The other aspect was the housing issue. That, too, is an instrument. Addressing housing and social housing is an instrument that can be used towards the war on poverty. I think the words you used are that “it at least provides support for a critical weapon in the wider war on poverty”.

So on the initiatives that you've seen us take in the budget, such as $1 billion to support much needed repairs to social housing, $600 million for new housing repairs on reserve and in the north, $400 million to build more seniors housing, and $75 million for new housing for people with disabilities, it's exactly the point you're making in terms of saying that it's a critical weapon in the wider war on poverty.

[Sherri Torjman]

Yes, indeed, but the--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Battle, I see you shaking your head. For the record, you have to speak your agreement. Did you agree with that comment? The amounts in the budget that I quoted relating to housing specifically are broken down. Would you agree with me that it is a part of the wider war on poverty and a critical weapon in that war?

[Ken Battle]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

There are a few minutes left.

Do you wish, Madam Torjman, to add something?

Mr. Komarnicki, Madam Torjman would like to add something. You have a minute left.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I had more questions for Mr. Battle.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

She usually has some very interesting answers, Mr. Komarnicki. It might be well worthwhile.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm sure she does, but maybe on someone else's time. I have some other questions for Mr. Battle. I'm sure she'll have an opportunity to raise that somewhere else if that's okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Okay. You still have one minute, Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I've blown a minute dealing with this issue.

With respect to employment insurance--and I realize it is another tool to be used, specifically with respect to access to that--as I understand it from the statistics, those who pay into employment insurance, almost 82%, qualify for that now. Others who haven't entered the system, who don't pay, may not qualify, and that's fair. When you indicated it was 40%, where did you get those figures from, and how do rationalize against what I'm saying?

[Ken Battle]

What we're looking at is the coverage of unemployed Canadians. In other words, the denominator is the unemployed; the numerator is people getting regular EI.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Are you dealing just with those who pay into EI?

[Ken Battle]

No, the majority of people who pay into EI when they're unemployed do not qualify for EI.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The second point was with the variable entrance. The underpinning of that is that those who have the highest rate of unemployment require fewer hours to qualify and the benefits are extended longer. What do you have against that proposition?

[Ken Battle]

What I have against it is that two unemployed Canadians who happen to live in different unemployment areas should not be treated differently. If you're unemployed, you're unemployed. It doesn't necessarily mean--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Even if the employment rate is--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Komarnicki, you're over your time now. Please allow an answer.

[Ken Battle]

An unemployed person living in a low unemployment area does not ipso facto mean that it is easier for them to find a job than an unemployed person in a high unemployment area. That's the argument we're making.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'm sorry. I'm giving you extra time.

Vous avez cinq minutes, Monsieur Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of you for coming and giving us this information. We want to determine through the study how the federal government can play a role in developing an anti-poverty strategy for Canada. It seems to me that there are two key things in determining what role the government can have in assisting people living in poverty. One is, what are we directly spending to assist those people? The other is also negative in that the question is, w hat is the ability of the federal government to assist those who live in poverty? What I mean is the fiscal spending ability of the federal government. When we, for example, reduced the GST by two points, we reduced the fiscal capacity of the federal government to spend on those who need it the most.

Is that a fair statement?

[Ken Battle]

Yes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

So we are reducing the ability of the federal government. I'm looking at a table from a very distinguished public policy analyst by the name of Ken Battle, which indicates that from the most recent federal budget a two-earner couple with two children, which would be me, who earned $150,000, which would be me, will get a $483 tax savings from this budget, whereas a two-earner couple with two children making $20,000 will get nothing. That inequity just seems to me to be quite striking. That's not the way we should be doing it.

I would like to ask each of you if you agree with my statement that this does nothing to alleviate poverty. Briefly tell me what measures would you use with the money that went into these tax cuts that would most assist people who are living in poverty in Canada.

I'll start with Ken.