Human Resources Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Geranda Notten]

Yes, Caledon is doing it through crowdfunding.

[Richard Shillington]

They can do it much better than anybody else, because they were actually federal officials. It's an important point.

I was, a long time ago, a federal official, and I know that when the federal government was going to increase the child tax credit, their concern was that they were just going to reduce welfare. Going to the seniors benefit, if we're going to increase the GIS, then the provinces that have GIS top-ups could adjust.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Excellent, thank you very much.

I'm sorry, but we have to move on. Now, for five minutes, we'll have Mr. Warawa, please.

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

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'll give you a little background, and then I have a question. I live in the greater Vancouver area, in Langley. We have a large seniors population. Right now, one in six Canadians is a senior. In six years, it will be one in five. In 13 years, it will be one in four.

Seniors, as a demographic, are one of the most vulnerable groups. There are some very wealthy seniors, but there are some seniors who are struggling. I found of great interest the comments made by Ms. Notten about material deprivation as we assess seniors.

The government has announced a top-up for single female seniors. Using the limited statistics, one way of looking at poverty, we're saying that the statistics are showing that it is single female seniors, because maybe they have not worked and are relying on very limited resources. In some cases, we're looking at seniors who have been living together as a couple for 50 or 60 years, and one now has health issues. If you look at that situation, they may be struggling more than any other group, so as we assess poverty and how to help, should we consider those who are in a situation of poverty but are still a couple? They're in poverty and are now being excluded from the program.

The previous Liberal government brought in the compassionate care program and was very restrictive about who would qualify for it. I advocated for a constituent who didn't qualify for taking care of her sister in the last days of her life, because they said you can't take care of a sibling. We changed it when we became government so that the person dying could choose who would be the care provider. It could be a sibling. It could be a friend, provided they qualified for EI benefits. We expanded the compassionate care program, and I'm glad to hear from the government that it is going to expand it.

Sometimes we come up with these programs that really don't meet the needs, so I was quite fascinated by what you said, that we have to take a more fulsome look. Many of you said that we need to do more to take care of seniors.

Would you comment on expanding the GIS? It is excellent that we're expanding the GIS to help those who are truly in need. Should we be looking at anyone who qualifies, whether it is a couple or a single person? If they are in poverty and they need help, then bump it up.

Could I have your comments, please, Ms. Notten.

[Geranda Notten]

Your question refers to seniors and the compassionate care program. I was a little bit confused.

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

It is not the compassionate care program. The GIS program is being bumped up for singles. Say you are not a single. You are a couple but you are living in poverty. Should the government maybe reconsider expanding that to include all people who are truly in poverty and include in their consideration of poverty material deprivation, which would include seniors as a couple?

[Geranda Notten]

From a poverty reduction sense, it makes sense that, whether they are living independently or as a couple, you look at their resources and what their needs are, and that would be the qualifying criterion, for assistance, whether through GIS or not. I would say yes, in short.

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

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have about 20 seconds, sir.

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

I'd like a quick comment from Mr. Cross.

You said that a very powerful anti-poverty program is rapid economic growth. Right now, we're struggling. Would additional taxes, for example the carbon tax, be a wet blanket on economic growth in Canada?

[Philip Cross]

In broad terms, yes, but the carbon tax that's being proposed, and we're talking about 10¢ a litre, compared to the very low price of energy, I don't think is going to have a major impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you sir.

For three minutes, we'll go to MP Sansoucy.

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

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I was very interested in Mr. Shillington and Ms. Notten's comments, regarding the fact that they deplore the abolition of the National Council of Welfare. I chose to contribute to the minister's efforts to develop a national poverty reduction strategy by tabling Bill C-245.

To achieve this goal, one thing I felt was essential—and that is why this is in the bill—was that we bring back a national council whose objective would be to reduce poverty, further social inclusion, and also create an Office of the Poverty Reduction Commissioner. This would allow us, as we said earlier, to develop clearer indicators than those we currently have. In addition to that, the commissioner could evaluate the success of our efforts to reduce poverty, year after year.

Ms. Notten, in your presentation, you referred to the various provincial strategies that exist. You discussed some of them, such as the one in Quebec.

Among the poverty reduction strategies that have already been put in place in several provinces and territories, which ones do you think could serve as a source of inspiration for the federal government? In connection with what Mr. Long was saying, how could we align provincial and federal efforts in a poverty reduction strategy?

[Geranda Notten]

I've been studying four provincial poverty reduction strategies in detail. Most of the provinces and territories have one, with the exception of Alberta. My research shows that provinces do this differently, although there are some commonalities. In their practices, they each do things well that others don't do well. I think that there is a potential for learning.

One of the things that the Quebec strategy does quite well is to institutionalize the participation of non-government agents in a debate about what poverty and social inclusion is, and they provide resources for an independent, or relatively independent, monitoring of progress on the goals of the poverty reduction strategy.

There are other provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, which regularly provide information about how much fiscal expense and how much money is invested in the strategy, and we know that every year, with the budget talk, and the same holds for Manitoba.

There are a lot of lessons that can be learned from provincial poverty reduction strategies that are helpful for a federal strategy, as well.

How do you integrate those strategies? I think you'll run amok with the differences in jurisdictions that you have between the levels of governments. That's why I would be in favour of creating a national institute that at least makes sure that we have a conversation going, that we are exchanging information, that we know what happens, potentially, about those feedback effects, and what happens at the federal level with more money given at the federal level and money taken away at the provincial level.

We want to be aware of what's going on. We want to have a debate. We can do it for health, but apparently not for social issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We are going to move on to the second round, assuming everybody is okay with that. Seeing the clock at almost half-past with only 15 minutes left, I don't see the point in breaking. There's no argument there.

It's over to Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Dr. Notten, you spoke about the difference between income-based measurements of low income and outcome-based measurements with outcome measurements relying more on the needs that a person has to avoid material deprivation whereas income is merely a measurement of what they have coming into their bank account.

We were briefed on three different measurements by Stats Canada at the last meeting. One is the low-income measure; the second is the low-income cut-off, and the third is the market basket measure. It seems to me that of the three, two of them measure in varying degrees, and with arguable success, the needs that a person has. Those two are the market basket measure and LICO. LICO is anchored to 1992 levels of consumption, but it still does measure the number of people who spend 20% or more of their greater income on basic necessities of life than the average.

The low-income measure, however, would seem to be the only one that has no relationship whatsoever to the cost of purchasing the basic necessities of life to avoid material deprivation. I'm not an expert on any of these measures. Is it true to say that the low-income measure is the only one of the three that bears no relationship to the needs a person has to avoid material deprivation?

[Geranda Notten]

Thank you for your question.

First I'd like to respond to needs. All poverty measures, the LICO, the MBM, market basket measure, but also the material deprivation indicators, don't directly look at needs. Material deprivation indicators don't look at needs, but they talk about what we consider necessities in Canadian society. Then the LICO and the MBM look at the average costs of living, or the average needs, but the problem is your average Canadian is not your typical Canadian. There is a very large heterogeneity.

Income indicators try to connect by costing those minimum necessities or needs, in particular the LICO and the MBM. I agree with you. Material deprivation focuses on necessities, what outcomes are associated with a poverty-level living standard. If someone has higher needs, they might be more likely to have those poverty-level standards of living. They might not be able to afford the necessities, but they don't try to measure needs per se.

When it comes to the LIM, and this is broadly debated, how would you define poverty? What is your benchmark for analysis? Is it enough to meet a minimum and the minimum for what? Is it just to survive physically or to be part of society or is it how much less you have in comparison to what's typical, normal, and average?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We're all familiar with that philosophical debate of relativity versus absolute, but my question is with respect to the LIM. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the cost of avoiding material deprivation. If the cost of living were to triple, that would not, all other things being equal, have any impact on the LIM, because the LIM does not measure the cost of living. It measures exclusively the relationship between low-income people and median-income people. Is that accurate?

[Geranda Notten]

Yes, although there might be a second round of facts of tripling the cost of living; that's for sure.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

LICO, by contrast, does have a relationship, you might argue a flawed one, but it does have a relationship to the costs people incur when they consume the things they need.

[Geranda Notten]

I would make that point for the MBM. The LICO is a specific hybrid, I would say, that is stuck in time and is based on the consumption expenditures of Canadians. It still has a relative sense, and we assume that it tells us something about that minimum cost of living.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Are you an advocate, then, of the market basket measure?

[Geranda Notten]

I think there are more serious attempts made when it comes to the market basket measure to get an idea of what that cost of living is in particular communities. So yes, that's what I would say.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Do you believe that the market basket measure should be elastic in its definition? Do you think that every year we should go back and say that actually the basket has become bigger, or that we've looked around and now the basket requires you to have a smart phone, whereas last year a landline was good enough? Do you believe that it should be constantly evolving and constantly growing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Please be brief.