Evidence of meeting #6 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
There's literally 10 seconds left, so if you would like to wrap up....
4:20 p.m.
Ontario
There have been mistakes made in the past. We have to be careful about what we do in the future to avoid hurting the most vulnerable in our society. We have not paid enough attention to that. We need more political will, more focus on the most vulnerable.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you.
Again, thank you for the good work that you're doing. I want to say right at the outset today that I'm hopeful, probably more hopeful than I've been in a long time, that we might actually get to a place where we get something done. We're not arguing any more about whether there is or there isn't; I think we all agree there is. We've begun to measure it, we've identified some of the groups that are most at risk, and we also, I think, agree that the federal government has a role to play.
You've tabled a report. We're going to table a report soon based on the work we're doing, offering suggestions as to things that can be done.
The one suggestion that I have certainly heard from you, Mr. Segal—and I believe Mr. Eggleton supports it as well, because it comes out in some part in your report—is the recommendation that there be a guaranteed annual income. Just as we found ways for children with the child tax benefit and for seniors with the GIS, for working-age adults...some kind of a guaranteed income.
I guess the first question is this. Can we afford to do that? That, I would suspect, is the first question any government would ask.
4:25 p.m.
Ontario
We made various requests to the Library of Parliament and other organizations in terms of the notional cost. Now of course how you design such a program will have a huge impact on the notional cost. As someone of the conservative persuasion, I'd be concerned about spending more than we are now spending in the social envelope. I think basic income done through a negative income tax would in fact be more efficient and take a lot of the middlemen out of the process. It would provide better support for those who need it more efficiently.
The number we have heard is anywhere between $25 billion and $32 billion in terms of a federal fiscal impact once the program was at full bore. But if you take what Senator Eggleton said earlier into account, namely, when you reduce poverty you reduce demand on the health care system, you reduce demand on the judicial system.... I have a crown attorney in my Senate district who will say to me that if there were no poor people in her county, she wouldn't have any business in terms of the youth diversion program she tries to run to keep kids out of prison. They all come from those kinds of families in deep financial difficulty. Plus you'd have the savings for welfare in the provinces. So in essence that's why we need to do a detailed costing paper, which is what our committee recommended.
You may find that a very modest seed investment at the outset will begin to produce a return on that investment. That actually indicates that we're no further behind in terms of total expenditure, but we're targeting it better. If you do it through the tax system, you protect people's privacy. You increase their compliance incentives and you do it in a fashion--as we now do with the GST tax credit--that is automatic. So you avoid all of the middle structures that are costly both to the provinces and to Service Canada--the federal government--and some municipalities.
We think it's workable, but we think you have to have a detailed costing so all the issues can be on the table. We should do it in a kind of open book approach, because that's the only way we can make progress.
4:25 p.m.
Ontario
If I may, I'll add to that. We had a round table just on this one subject. While we got various opinions, we said this is worthy of further examination. But it's a big move and we wouldn't want to hinge this whole report on one big move. So we said this needs some further fleshing out, and that's what the green paper is all about.
Meanwhile, we've been very definitive about a basic income for the severely disabled, as I pointed out earlier. We've also put in here--74 recommendations in all--a number of measures that could be taken to help lift people out of poverty. We recognize that any big move, such as a basic or a guaranteed annual income, is going to take a while. It's going to take a lot of discussion, a lot of fleshing out. It's been recommended before and nothing has ever happened. It's been recommended by a number of people, as Senator Segal said.
We need to start relieving people of poverty now. So there are recommendations in here that are short term, medium term, and long term. So it gives both houses of Parliament, who deal with these recommendations, enough options to see how you can go to correct the situation. It's just a patchwork quilt of programs and policies and criteria. We have taken as our basic position that we want to lift people out of poverty.
Here are a number of ways that we think it can happen in a timeframe that is either short, medium, or long term. So we're asking government to look at these, and they may pick some, they may not pick others. We hope you pick most of them. And if you go whole hog with what Senator Segal is advocating--the basic annual income--then of course a lot of these others won't be necessary. But it will take a few years. Meanwhile we need to relieve poverty now. Remember, again, you've got an aging population. Poverty is costing us a lot. We need to spend money better.
It's like health care. We're talking about the need to bend the curve on the rising cost of health care. We're saying we've got to get more prevention. We've got to invest those dollars a little differently to prevent these kinds of costs from continuing to rise. Well, we need to do the same thing with poverty, and particularly with an aging population.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I've got a minute left.
I appreciated the comment--and all of your comments--about the economic cost. I think it's important that that be put on the table; we can't afford poverty any more.
But when you bring it forward to the powers that be, there's the cost, and then there's this robot that's always there saying that people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It's the attitude of the deserving and undeserving poor.
Did you do any thinking about that? How do you get past that?
4:30 p.m.
Ontario
Let's just look at the facts now: 48% of the people who live beneath the poverty line, all over Canada, are working; and in some of those homes, they're holding down two jobs at minimum wage, which is insufficient to actually meet their requirements. They're still beneath the poverty line.
So the notion that a whole bunch of people are sitting around drinking beer and watching television is one of those myths.
Will there be gaming of the system? Of course, there will be. There's gaming of the system now.
And what kind of disincentive does the present welfare system impose? We had one case of a young person who applied to get a Province of Ontario student loan, because as a single mother she had worked herself into the circumstance of getting admitted à une institution postsecondaire. The minute she applied for the student loan she was cut off welfare.
That shows just how much the system goes against the real needs of our fellow citizens.
We know that if she goes to school, her chances of paying taxes, being a solid contributor, are huge, yet we have a provincial system that has been in place under various governments—cela n'a rien à faire avec la partisanerie—that actually penalizes her for trying. That's where we have to say something here is fundamentally wacko.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your presentation. You have certainly put forward some thought-provoking suggestions, and perhaps they're required.
I found it interesting that you said many of the programs we have today are patchwork programs that have been created over time, and maybe some of them are counter-productive in terms of what they're trying to achieve.
If I look at the seniors, I agree with you that we have certainly done quite well. I think we have reduced the poverty rate to about 4.8% as of 2007, which is certainly significant when you compare it worldwide. We have used the OAS and the GIS fairly significantly. That's about a $34 billion bill.
I noticed that on the EI side you made some suggestions about how you might help those who have been attached to the workforce longer, and we've put in some measures more recently for long-tenured workers. I look at the suggestions regarding the self-employed; we've done some of that. And you talk about EI training and skills upgrading. We've invested $1.5 billion, on top of $2.8 billion that is going to the provinces.
So there are significant dollars going forward. But have you done a costing of what your recommendations might entail? Forgetting the offsetting economic benefits that may come, putting that aside, have you done any costing of your suggestions, based on what already exists, compared to what you would like to see, using the existing patchwork of programs?
4:30 p.m.
Ontario
We have not done a detailed costing, but we have operated on the premise that we spend enough money now. We believe these can be done. It's a change of focus, just like we're talking about in terms of health care. The costs keep rising. We know we have to curtail the rising costs. We have to put more money into prevention, just as we need to here as well.
We need to refocus. There's a lot of money out there: $150 billion goes to individuals. Some of that's pensions and stuff like that, but a lot of it is social assistance. But it's all designed to give individuals a decent standard of living. We believe in a refocusing of that money.
I gave you an example where the Premier of Alberta said that giving people a home with supports would cost about $35,000, compared to $100,000 to keep them on the street, because shelter costs are high, or they go to emergency rooms at hospitals, or they're in and out of the criminal justice system or have addictions. There are all sorts of problems that they carry with them. Well, why wouldn't you take the $35,000 instead of the $100,000? That's obviously an improvement to the public purse.
We found statistics like that in the rest of the country as well. So by changing the focus, the committee doesn't think we need additional money.
There's also going to be transitional money, transitional as you go from one system to another, but at the end of the day, we'll save an enormous amount of money: $30 billion in costs in health care and lost productivity. That's an awful lot of money.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
That raises two other points. It's interesting, because when asked what might you do, your suggestion was to freeze the national child benefit at $5,000 and to increase the working income tax benefit, which is quite popular, and the GIS, which is an existing program.
So my question to you is twofold. First, in terms of spending the money better, and if you're using the same money, which programs you would cut and which you would increase, you've indicated some that you'll want. How would you realign it? Did you do anything with respect to that?
4:35 p.m.
Ontario
This is the old notion that social policy and social justice are a zero-sum game. I could ask you--you cut the GST, which I support one hundred per cent--can you tell us how cutting the GST helped poor people? We know we did it to help poor people because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income in the GST. It was a good policy. I support it.
A whole bunch of people will ask what other programs we could not do because we cut the GST. And our response, which I support one hundred per cent, has been if you help people in their day-to-day lives stay involved economically, there will be returns. If the people who stayed in the workforce, because they could afford to, invested in some home renovations, that generated jobs and return.
We're making the very same case here. We're saying that if people who now live below the poverty line--costing a huge amount to the welfare system and to the criminal justice system and to the health care system and to the prison system--are left where they are, the burden on the taxpayer will get larger over time. And demographics will make it worse.
Our proposition, with respect, is that we should cost out very carefully the net benefits of what has transpired with existing methods. That's why we're calling for a green paper from the government that points to the issues you're raising, which I think are very constructive, so we could take a look at the net benefit and the net return.
When the Minister of Finance brought in the WITB program, it had a cost. But it also had a huge benefit to the economy, in my judgment. When the minister brought in expansion to the employment insurance program, it had a cost but also a real benefit to the economy.
We're of the view that nothing in this report should go forward unless it produces a benefit to the economy. And we do not think we should be spending any more money.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I appreciate what you're saying, and some of it I don't argue with.
The statement was initially, Mr. Eggleton, that we should spend the money we are spending smarter within the programs. I thought we had. And the question was directed in that regard.
The issue is bigger than this, I agree. But you have other compounding things, such as jurisdictional issues, when you say....
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I think you're moving to a place where you're saying you've got a whole host of programs. Maybe we need to bring all these programs to a point where you guarantee a certain income and eliminate a lot of this. But you're dealing with two jurisdictions, the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction. And somehow you're going to have to arrive at a place where the whole of government--federal, provincial, territorial--is rejigged to bring you to the place where perhaps the same amount of money is spent, but in a smarter and better fashion.
How do you propose this might be accomplished?
4:35 p.m.
Ontario
We need the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to be dialoguing on this to work out a pan-Canadian way of dealing with this kind of thing. It does overlap on both levels. It also has to involve the aboriginals and local government. All levels of government and the communities need to be working.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I'm sorry. Time is up on that round. But I hope you'll have a chance to answer.
Madame Folco.
March 24th, 2010 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, too, senators, want to thank you both for speaking to us today. Your reputation definitely precedes you. So far, we have been talking in rather general terms, and we have not discussed specific client groups. I want to talk about a group of clients that is very important to me, immigrants.
There is talk of immigration. They say that we can bring in immigrants, that there are already many here, that immigration will help us pay our taxes, our pensions and so forth. There is no integration without employment, and employment is at the heart of the matter.
Since I have been in Ottawa—13 years now—we have been talking about the fact that when immigrants come here, many of them, not just professionals, employment groups, as well—whether they are joiners, plumbers or whatever—very rarely manage to find work in their field. That issue was being discussed even before that, when I was a member of the Quebec government. The Quebec government made efforts in the area of foreign credentials equivalence. We took action when we were in power: a minister was appointed to address the issue.
I wonder how you see the work that needs to be done to help these people—I am not just talking about professionals, and I want to make that clear—who are truly underemployed. Many of them do not even have jobs. Keep in mind, on the one hand, the associations, professional or not, which have an active role in this decision and, on the other hand, the provincial governments, which also have a role to play. I am not sure who would like to respond.
4:40 p.m.
Ontario
We'll both answer it.
Let me point out that about six recommendations, numbers 58 through to 64, deal with newcomers to Canada, because what we're finding in the new immigration to this country--a lot of it racial minorities--is that they are experiencing considerable problems. They're overrepresented in the unemployed. They're overrepresented in terms of the people who are having difficulty finding housing. They're overrepresented in homelessness as well.
So we've made some recommendations that we think will help ease that transition into our society. There have to be bridging programs for them to help them get employment opportunities. There's a case I mentioned earlier where we found some promising practices. There is one in my city of Toronto, for example, where business leaders are helping to give people the apprenticeships and the mentoring they need to help get them into jobs that will then give them something on their résumés so that they have Canadian experience.
We have a number of these kinds of programs around the country that can help people. I think we have to get behind that.
We have a number of these promising programs, and those people could help spread that to other communities, but they need some help to do it. They're on shoestring budgets. They don't have the money to do outreach, to try to get their message across, and to share information with other parts of the country.
We have a recommendation here that also calls for that, but recommendations 58 to 64 deal specifically with newcomers to Canada.
Hugh.
4:40 p.m.
Ontario
I wanted to add that the poverty issue is more serious among immigrants. Newcomers to Canada are not as successful as previous generations. It is a problem that goes beyond just employment. It involves identity, as well as other issues.
The issue of school dropouts is something that we talked about and that has a significant impact on immigrants. One organization, in Toronto and elsewhere in Canada, is called pathways to education. It has done tremendous work, helping to bring down the dropout rate, which went from 56% to 7% in some communities. I am delighted to say that the government has just announced that it has earmarked $20 million in its budget to support this group's work.
In my opinion, we need to find a joint strategy, one that brings together well-established community organizations, provincial organizations and federal funding. We also need a goal, not just aspirations. In addition, we need an annual report to tell us whether we are making progress or not.
I know that in Quebec and the other provinces, they are working very hard on that. But the fact remains that the federal government must, according to the report recommendations, take action to coordinate at least some of the efforts, to ensure that best practices are shared among the provinces and perhaps to ensure that certain activities are funded so that no momentum is lost, something that is key.