Human Resources Committee on March 24th, 2010

[Senator Hugh Segal]

We've done that with other programs over time.

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

When you're doing that, either progressively or in one big swoop, are you looking at replacing some of the other programs we have, such as the national child credit or the working income tax benefit, because of the other aspect?

[Senator Hugh Segal]

Your question reveals precisely why we want a green paper to look at the options and the implications. Let me be clear: there was no consensus on the committee that we should move to a guaranteed annual income. The consensus was that we should have a green paper on how it might work in comparison with the other programs now in place. That's where the consensus was, and that's what the report recommends. Your questions are precisely the kind that would have to be dealt with in that kind of green paper.

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

It would seem to me that if you moved in that direction, you might take some of the complexities and patchwork out of the system we now have, which might have some pluses and minuses as we go forward.

[Senator Hugh Segal]

As my late mother used to say, “from your mouth to God's ears”.

[Senator Art Eggleton]

I think we also need to bear in mind that there are support services that people need. It's not just all about money. That's a big part of it, but there are support services. I particularly think of the disabled, but of some of the others—the education, those who are employable but who need training. There are other things that will still be needed; it won't solve everything.

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

It doesn't, but it takes some of the complexities out of the system, and there are others that will be there.

You also talked about the economic cost savings because of some of the actions that are taken, but until those come to fruition, if you're going to implement programs—regardless of whether it's progressive or in one big step—do you propose that the cost of doing that come either from raising taxes or going further into deficit?

[Senator Art Eggleton]

No. We're already putting in a ton of money. We need to switch the direction of the ship. You can't do that overnight; you have to do it slowly. You're going to have to take some money and move it, and shift things to get the ship turned around. But right off the bat there are some things that are really quite logical. For example, in homelessness, why would we spend $100,000 when we could spend $35,000, as Mr. Stelmach says?

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

What kind of timeframe are you looking at in terms of turning the ship, so to speak?

Mr. Segal has some questions, so go ahead.

[Senator Art Eggleton]

It can take some time. That's why we didn't have just the big bang kind of recommendation here. You could say the guaranteed income might be the big bang, and maybe that can work, but we've got a lot of other incremental options, and some of those are short term, that can start to help lift people out of poverty. That's the bottom line, lifting people out of poverty.

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

Mr. Segal had a comment, so maybe he could finish off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, we'll let Mr. Segal finish, and then we'll go to Mr. Savage.

[Senator Hugh Segal]

In Dauphin, Manitoba, when they brought in the Mincome experiment in 1975, those rural families were told that if they didn't reach a certain level of income, they'd be eligible for a top-up. It was jointly funded by the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. What they found after the first five years was that dropouts began to reduce, people staying in education began to increase, hostel admissions went down, car accidents went down, arrests went down, in the surrounding and existing community. YOUCAN began. And there's an academic in Manitoba, whom I hope you may choose to call—Dr. Evelyn Forget—who is beginning to indicate what those trends are in terms of savings to very expensive parts of government.

But I think your question is very well taken, because the notion that because you turn one tap the other tap begins to turn off instantaneously is probably way too optimistic. There would be a transition period, as there has been with a host of other programs that have been brought in, in health care and elsewhere, where you empty the beds because you have diversion programs to put people in different kinds of care, but the beds fill up anyway, because at some level demand doesn't necessarily fall off. One would have to look very carefully at those issues and measure the costs quite appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We have come to the end of our time allotted, but I would like to ask the witnesses if they would consider staying an extra ten minutes. I know we have a couple of more questions from the opposition members. I think the government side is finished with their questions. If you would indulge us, I would give the opportunity for a three-minute round, but I will be very strict on the time.

Would the witnesses be agreeable to staying?

[Senator Hugh Segal]

Madam Chair, we're in the Senate. We have nowhere more exciting to be than here. This is as good as it gets for us.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We're very happy to have you here, so we appreciate that.

I'll begin with Mr. Savage.

I will remind you that I'll be very strict on the three minutes.

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

Thank you.

I thank committee members and our witnesses for their indulgence and stamina.

It seems to me that one of the issues we haven't done very well with as a country in dealing with poverty is the issue of the integration of provincial and federal initiatives, policies, and programs. I know your recommendation number 54 speaks to the idea that if we do have this basic annual income for people with severe disabilities, the provinces will save money, which they should then put back into appropriate programs, which I think references that very need.

When your former colleague, the very distinguished Senator Mike Kirby, whom Mr. Lobb referenced, came before our committee, he spoke about how the social infrastructure of the country is not designed for people with disabilities. In his case, he was speaking specifically of people with mental health issues. For example, 15 weeks of sickness benefits have to be taken at the same time, whereas people who have mental health issues or suffer from depression could experience these episodically. That could be the same for people with MS and people with certain types of cancer who are seeking treatments. We don't really need to change the whole program; we just need to make the program more responsive to the actual facts of illness. I think the program should be longer, but I'm wondering if you could just talk about that, how the social infrastructure is not really, in some cases, designed for people who need it the most, and those changes could be very effectively and quickly implemented.

[Senator Art Eggleton]

On that particular one you mentioned a moment ago, the EI sickness benefits, there are people who have cancer who get cut off at 15 weeks. That hasn't been reviewed since 1971, and it doesn't speak to some of the needs of people who are on EI sickness. So we've recommended that over time—not all being done instantly—that should expand to 50 weeks. It hasn't been changed since 1971.

[Senator Hugh Segal]

I think you are talking about the core problem of a social safety net that was designed with the following assumption: people retired at 65 and they died between 65 and 72. That meant, by the way, that a lot of the people who run into disease between the ages of 65 and 82 were not part of that assumption back then, because it wasn't part of our demographic reality. It is now, and most of our programs are still based on that old construct.

So in any fundamental rethinking, including with respect to poverty, disability, illness, particularly mental illness, because our understanding of what that is has changed and the way in which it's treated has changed, clearly our systems do not connect. That's not the fault of present government, previous government, provincial governments; it's just that it's so complex that people have avoided it.

I think one of the opportunities for the committee is to recommend one or two breakthrough options, where we can make progress that sends a signal that we have to begin to update the whole system, because the demographic reality is that we actually want people to live a longer life. We actually want people to have grandchildren. We actually want people to be able to fight cancer and come back, fight mental illness and reintegrate. We don't want to discourage that, but our system is not yet structured to address that, and that may be one of the areas we didn't look at in great detail in terms of timing. That may be something this committee in its wisdom may choose to consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Monsieur Lessard, you have three minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

First, I want to make a comment. The government projected that between 2012 and 2015, it would accumulate a $19-billion EI surplus because premiums would go up while the government's obligations to long-tenured workers would stop. That amount should make it possible to implement all of your recommendations regarding EI, that is, recommendations 7 to 15.

I would like you to explain recommendation 7 a little more. You recommend the creation of a new program to insure against income losses due to long-term employment interruption that covers those who are not included under the Employment Insurance Act.

Clearly, that means workers who lose their job and who have paid premiums. If I understand correctly, the rules exclude them, but they still pay EI premiums. I want to understand why there would be a dual system, when they are already paying.

[Senator Hugh Segal]

I think you are totally right. The tightening up of eligibility requirements in the 1990s led to this situation, where a large number of unemployed workers were not eligible.

That represents a challenge to making the EI system more inclusive than it is now. I am thinking about the current fiscal situation. It is the same for the rest of the world; it will be difficult to make progress in this area in a timely manner.

As a Canadian, I would like to know what we can do to help those that the program does not support through no fault of their own. They must have the opportunity to participate economically in society. The recommendations that were made seek to address the problem by creating a bridge.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Why would the current system not do so?

[Senator Hugh Segal]

It is a matter of understanding the problem of those who do not qualify under the program's current rules. It would be nice if we could change the program. But if we are not willing to do that, we cannot leave those who are not covered without any financial aid. That is the distinction we tried to make.