Human Resources Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

Let's see if I have that stat with me.

I don't have that handy.

[Galen Countryman, Director, Social Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

I don't have that number with me either, but there was a costing in the budget tables. We can get back to you on that, but you're in the right ballpark.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I think if we just multiply it, and 900,000—

[Galen Countryman]

It's in that neighbourhood. I don't have it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

This is targeted at single seniors. I am concerned that we are omitting seniors who are living in poverty and are not single but may be a couple, a couple who may have been living together as a couple for 40, 50, or 60 years. They are at an age now where mobility issues have arisen and one of the couple is helping the other one who is struggling. Instead of going into a health care facility, they're able to live together, still in poverty.

There is an incentive now that the government has created that, if they want to get that benefit, they now have to separate and move into a care facility, so that they are not caring for each another. They are going into a care facility and now are able to get that additional benefit.

What percentage of Canadian seniors living in poverty would be the couples? You have 900,000 Canadians who are going to get this benefit. What would be the number of seniors living in poverty who would not qualify because they're a couple? What's that number?

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

I would have to get back to you. That's the number of Canadian seniors who are part of a couple and who are not eligible for the GIS?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Yes. For Canadian seniors living in poverty who do not qualify for the GIS, the targeted increase, what is that number? You've given a number of 900,000. I think the number used is that 20% of Canadian seniors in poverty are a couple. I think that's the number the government has used before. Is that an accurate number?

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

I'm not sure if that's accurate. I know that there are 1.5 million seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement, both married and single, and of course those who are married receive it at the married rate, which is lower than the rate for seniors. What we do know, though, is that single seniors are more likely to be in low income on GIS, whereas for couples—you're right, there are still some who are in low income—the two sources of income for couples are more likely to raise them above the poverty line, the low-income line.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Yes, but in this scenario, I would like to know the number, and if you do not have it available.... I think it's an important number. What I think is that if you're living in poverty and you need help, if you need targeted assistance, the government announced during the election that you had to be a single senior to qualify for it. That's the direction the government has gone in, but if you're a senior living in poverty, whether you're single or in a couple, if you need help, you need help. I'd like to know how many Canadians will not qualify for that targeted assistance of a bump-up in GIS. If you're in poverty and you need help, you need help.

The stories that I'm hearing are of couples where one of the two is now taking care of the other one. They're not able now to go out and get a job and work to provide that extra, and they end up living in poverty, yet they need that help. I think it's a very small number, and in terms of the $852 million, if they are a very small number, why would we not provide that? If they're in poverty, they need help. Why would we exclude them? So—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Is that my time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Yes. We don't usually get this far down the list. That was the five-minute block, and usually, I know, we're at seven. I apologize. I should have made you aware of that at the beginning.

I will follow up on that and mention to you, MP Sansoucy, that you have three minutes for this question.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You didn't answer the question asked by my colleague Mr. Robillard about the efforts under way to develop a national poverty reduction strategy.

I contributed to those efforts by introducing Bill C-245, which seeks to establish such a strategy. This morning, you went over a range of programs aimed at reducing poverty. In order to truly know how those programs are performing, we need to have clear targets, indicators and mechanisms in place. That's what I'm trying to achieve with my bill. It proposes that an independent commissioner report to the parliamentary budget officer and Auditor General on all of those programs and indicate whether they are truly reducing poverty. It's important not to go this way or that way without delivering concrete results.

The deputy minister told this committee that her department had done an analysis of my bill and found that it was perfectly in line with the government's intentions.

Can you tell us whether any members of your team took part in that analysis? What elements led to the department's determination that the bill was perfectly acceptable?

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

I can categorically say that it wasn't a member of my team who did this analysis, so I'm not able to provide a response to that today. I could take that back, but I'm not in a position to respond to that question.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Very well.

Would you agree that it is, first and foremost, necessary to establish clear targets, mechanisms, and indicators in the effort to reduce poverty? Earlier, you said there was no definition. The department hasn't even established a definition of poverty. Should we not establish mechanisms that are much clearer?

Everyone knows that, in 1989, the House of Commons unanimously pledged to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Now, here we are, 16 years later, and the figures clearly show that children continue to live in poverty in Canada, and that is the case for far too many of them.

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

I think Minister Duclos' discussion paper that was tabled absolutely indicates that poverty is multi-faceted. It's complicated, as our colleagues from Statistics Canada have said. It really depends on the social consensus around what that means and how someone can be economically and socially included with a low income.

The paper also pays a fair amount of attention to saying we need to make sure we know how to measure, so there is.... Absolutely, the paper is looking for input on that. The discussion paper acknowledges the importance of finding good measures to look at low income and poverty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

That ends the first round for today.

We're going to take a two or three-minute bio break, and then we'll come back with the second round and see how much of that we can get in.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Welcome back, everybody. We're going to get started with our second round.

Up first with six minutes is MP Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you very much.

My question is about METRs, the marginal effective tax rates, which represent the combined effect of benefit clawbacks and taxation for each new dollar earned. Does the Department of Employment and Social Development keep a database of METRs as they apply to Canadians in different regions, economic circumstances, and family compositions?

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

I can't speak for all programs in the department, but for the old age security program, we pay attention to the marginal effective tax rate. We also pay attention to the interaction between provincial programs, which may also have a reduction rate that creates a marginal effective tax rate.

In fact, when we changed the guaranteed income supplement this year, we did engage with provinces and territories to make sure there were no adverse interactions between the programs whereby a client who receives the guaranteed income supplement would have a reduction rate based on additional income, or similarly, that clients may be receiving a reduction rate for their provincial benefits.

I'm actually quite pleased to say that while there was one jurisdiction where there was a potential negative impact, which was the Yukon, the Yukon indicated a will to change their programming to eliminate the negative impact.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

That's good news.

Can you tell us the range of METRs applied to seniors who enter the workforce while they're on GIS or OAS?

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

For the guaranteed income supplement, there are two reduction rates. Those who are on the guaranteed income supplement top-up, which are those with incomes under about $8,500 of other income, would experience a reduction rate of $1 for every $4 of other income they have. For those who receive GIS from that point forward to when they're no longer eligible for GIS, the reduction rate is $1 per every $2 of income, so—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Income tax is on top of that.

[Nancy Milroy-Swainson]

It would be on top if they're paying income tax—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right.