Human Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[Jennefer Laidley]

I want to start by I guess challenging the notion that the best way out of poverty is a job.

We know, and I'm sure you heard this in the course of discussions around employment insurance, that many people who are working full time in this country are living in poverty. For many people, work is just not sufficient. The labour market has changed significantly over the last 25 to 30 years. We can't necessarily any longer say that the best route out of poverty is a job.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Would the solution be to make work pay?

[Jennefer Laidley]

Certainly, but as we're doing that—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I didn't hear any proposals in your submission to make work pay. I heard a lot of proposals for government to give people money.

[Jennefer Laidley]

I don't think it's a simple—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Perhaps I could just finish.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Sure.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We know that a lot of government-administered income programs actually punish work, because they are clawed back at a rate that is so steep that sometimes people who leave government assistance to go into a job actually end up worse off economically.

[Jennefer Laidley]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Do you have any specific proposals to reduce the phenomenon of government punishing work through high levels of marginal effective tax rates?

[Jennefer Laidley]

We don't have a proposal on that outlined, and I'm certainly not prepared to speak to that today.

There are others who feel that, for example, the working income tax benefit is an important piece of the puzzle, and some believe that a guaranteed annual income that does lower marginal effective tax rates to people on social assistance is a way to go. As I said in my remarks, income security is a fundamental piece of reducing poverty.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right. I guess your answer is that you don't have proposals for reducing marginal effective tax rates for low-income people.

[Jennefer Laidley]

I'm sure there will be others who would want to appear before this committee who might want to address that issue.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you. We will look forward to hearing them.

I think another element here is that income is one part. Outcome is the other, and outcome depends also on the cost of living. We know that anything that raises the price of food and fuel increases poverty. A Stats Canada witness told us that, and that's what leads me to the motion that I will propose to move now, Mr. Chair. It reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities study the effects of a federally-mandated carbon tax on low-income families, and that Employment and Social Development Canada and Statistics Canada fully report to the Committee on the number of people the carbon tax will cause to fall below the low-income cut-off line.

That motion would be in order. There has been notice granted, and it was provided to the clerk and the committee administration about two weeks ago.

This motion, Mr. Chair, would allow the committee to add this subject to the existing study. It does not propose to fundamentally alter the committee's agenda, but really augment what is already a worthy study that we are undertaking now, in large part due to your leadership.

I think we have an enormous policy decision before Canadians right now on the imposition of a $50-a-tonne carbon tax, and that tax would increase costs for the average Canadian by $1,028. It would increase the cost of basic staples of human life, such as food, fuel, and electricity. We know that poor households spend a third more of their income on those staples than do rich households, so the tax is extremely regressive and would disproportionately affect those with the least. The result is that we could see an increase in the number of people below the low-income cut-off line. We could also see an increase in the number of people who fall below the market basket measure of poverty.

That is not speculation. It's based on the testimony that this committee has heard. There was a witness from Stats Canada who indicated that any time you increase the price of fuel, electricity, or food, you raise the threshold of the low-income cut-off line and the market basket measure, and therefore you increase the number of people who fall below that threshold and by extension the number of people who are deemed to be living in poverty.

Therefore it falls to us to study these impacts rigorously. This tax is federally mandated. While the money it raises will be provincially administered, it is mandated by the federal government, and poverty is a national issue. We have a duty to study the impacts on the less fortunate of all the policies, especially one of this magnitude.

We know from the experience in Ontario that the Green Energy Act has transferred massive sums of money from the low-income population to the extremely wealthy. It is probably the biggest wealth transfer from poor to rich that has been enacted by any government in my lifetime. The Auditor General of this province has indicated that it has caused an overpayment for electricity of $37 billion over eight years. Over the next 30 years, it's supposed to lead to an overpayment of another $137 billion, all of those extra costs and unnecessary costs being put on the electricity bills of everyday Ontarians. The evidence is mounting that a very small number of well-connected insiders are being made into instant millionaires as a result of the subsidies they enjoy under that program.

I realize, Chair, that is a provincial program, but the federally mandated carbon tax can be expected to have very similar redistributional effects, and as a result, we as a committee that studies poverty have a duty to determine what impacts it will have.

I note that the data presented by Stats Canada of low income and the low-income cut-off on the provincial level shows that Ontario has the worst record of any government in Canada between the years 2003 and 2014. Poverty levels dropped by one-third in British Columbia, the Prairies, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, but in Ontario they barely budged. The number of people living on less than half the median income in Ontario actually increased during that time period, while it fell in every other province but two.

Ontario has demonstrated that some of these green policies can have an enormous impact on poverty. They can increase disparities. They are particularly harmful to the people who can least afford to pay for them.

I move this motion.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I hope that the committee will see to it to study this impact. A society is judged by how it treats its least fortunate. There is significant evidence to suggest that the least fortunate will be the most harmed by this policy. Therefore, the least we can do is study those impacts and find out how they can be mitigated or avoided altogether.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We have a point of order from Ms. Tassi. Then we have Dan, Bob, and Mark.

Go ahead.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect to that, we have witnesses here. The member's comments.... I really want to address the witnesses who are here. They have valuable information and input to give to us today. I would like to get to the point where I can ask questions of the witnesses who are here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

That's fair enough.

Dan, go ahead.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

It's much the same thing. The program you are referring to is kind of like putting the cart before the horse right now. This is something we can discuss at a later date.

However, we do have a lot of people right now. Indeed, we are talking about very complex issues with a lot of moving parts. Some of the people here live in the trenches. We can discuss your motion at any time. I would really like to discuss it, at any time. However, I value their information, and I would really like to hear it and be able to pose questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I don't know whether I have the capacity to do this or not.

I'll get to you in a second.

Can I propose that we move on with the questions—I think we have to have a motion for that— and carve out some time at the end of today to address the motion on the table?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

With respect, Chair, we would like to get to the vote on the motion. The motion is important to us, and it is important to the mover as well, so I think we need to deal with the motion, and in order. We have to deal with the motion, as it is on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We do, and that is why I am saying that we would have to either pull it and put it in committee business—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

We are prepared to vote on it. It was presented to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I am not suggesting that anything is being done out of order. I am just saying that I want to respect the witnesses who are here. If we can have a moment, I'll discuss with my guys what we want to do, and we'll go from there.

Mark, did you have a point?