Human Resources Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[Adaoma C. Patterson]

Absolutely.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

We will go over to MP Warawa. You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To the witnesses, this is a very interesting morning, and thank you for your testimony.

My focus is on seniors, and the unique needs that they are faced with, and the surprising disabilities they did not have previously, but now have. Maybe it's the loss of a partner, a spouse, a loved one, and their world has changed and they find themselves in poverty, with maybe some challenges and disabilities. How do we help them? The focus at this point in our study is employment, education, and training.

I was quite impressed with the testimony of each of you, actually, but Meticulon particularly, focusing on those with challenges of autism, and the genius within these young people. If we can see where their talents are, their skills, their interests, their love, and then put that to work and put the square peg in the square hole, and have a fit....

Can any of you comment on how we can help seniors in maybe the last 20 years of their lives, where they've been out of the workforce but because they need to, they have to get back into the workforce for their own dignity and well-being, but also to get a paycheque? Can anybody comment on how we can help Canadian seniors who find themselves in vulnerable positions?

[John Stapleton]

I would like to make a comment here from Toronto, if I could.

The clawbacks that we find on seniors' benefits are quite profound. For example, under the guaranteed income supplement, you might be aware that one can only earn $3,500 before benefits are clawed back. With the changes that have come in this year, those clawback rates go as high as 92% when somebody is just making a third of the minimum wage.

When you think of older people working in the Tim Hortons and in the Walmarts, etc., those people are facing a situation where they can only work from January to St. Patrick's Day before they start to lose 50% to 92% of their guaranteed income supplement benefits. One assumes that they'll be receiving the guaranteed income supplement because they need the money that badly. That's an area where you could certainly start, by raising that $3,500 exemption so that seniors would be able to work and actually keep a bit of the money that they get.

[Adaoma C. Patterson]

We're currently working with the Canada Revenue Agency on tax benefits and making sure that folks are receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. We assume that everyone in Canada is getting all the child benefits, the working income tax benefit, the OAS, for example. We are finding that this is not true, that there are people who are falling through the cracks.

We're just embarking on this initiative now, but we think that what it does is allow the conversation to happen with seniors, who are sometimes isolated. Once we figure out whether there is money that they are entitled to—that's the first step—are there other things, such as even having a conversation about the implication for their benefits of their going into the workforce? It opens the door to other conversations and to providing supports.

We recently met with some seniors. For them, isolation is a big factor, even just getting out, whether it's to paid or to volunteer work. Also it's supportive housing, not wanting to leave where they are or to leave the community in which they are, and sometimes they have to because there is no affordable housing in their community. Those are the things that compound the issues of income.

How do we provide the aging in place, allow people to get the supports they need where they are, in a place in which they feel safe and comfortable, and then make sure that, if there's money through the federal tax program that they should be getting, they are getting it?

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

I just have a quick comment that we really need to seriously look at training in geriatrics and in palliative care for our aging population, so that people can age in place. There are huge job opportunities in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thanks, Mark.

We'll go over to Ms. Ashton for three minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Great. Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to you, Ms. Arte. It strikes me that while we're having some really powerful conversations here, obviously the goal of this committee is to bring forward recommendations to the federal government. We certainly want to encourage work that's happening on the ground, but ultimately our mandate is to instruct the federal government on the leadership it ought to take.

Bringing that focus back, then, Ms. Arte, at a national forum we organized on the impact of precarious work on the millennial generation—a trend that we know is becoming more and more serious—we heard about the unique compounding factors that millennials face, including rising student debt and the high cost of tuition fees. We heard one of the speakers state at this forum, and I'm paraphrasing, that we understand that businesses require significant investment up front, so we gear a significant amount of our programs and financial support to businesses when they are starting out; however, we don't apply that same logic to people, and particularly young people.

I'm wondering whether you agree with that statement and what you believe is the most effective and efficient use of resources—again, federal resources—when it comes to funding the post-secondary education needs that young Canadians have.

[Bilan Arte]

Thank you for that question.

I think that, again, budgets are about priorities. There is an opportunity for a federal government with the power and the resources to fully fund a universal system of post-secondary education to do just that. When we talk about education and training, skills development, and development of an entire generation, we're talking about giving young people the same opportunities that were afforded to generations before us to be able to adequately achieve the degrees we need to be competitive in today's labour market.

We've talked about some of the stats around the requirements for a university or college-level degree, just to be successful in today's society, but when we think of us in the long term, with the compounding impacts of not being able to find stable, non-precarious, and long-term employment—as a generation of young people that have often been forced to take on short-term contracts and a lot of unpaid internships, non-remunerated work—and the expectation and standard that has been set by employers, young people are not going to have access to the same entry-level positions that afforded stability to a generation before us.

The long-term impacts of that can look like young people going back to live at home, taking longer to be able to think about starting a family, not buying a home, and not being innovative and thinking about starting their own business because they have too much debt to be able to think about investing in their own ideas.

I think there are very long-term impacts that inhibit the success of this generation, if the governments continue to refuse to provide the investments that our public post-secondary education needs to provide young people with the opportunities, skills, and training that they deserve for a better future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much for that insight. Quite honestly, if you're our future we're going to be in good hands, so thank you.

We have almost exactly 12 minutes left, so in the spirit of giving every side an opportunity for some final comments or questions, we're going to give everyone about four minutes. If we can keep it directly at four minutes, we should be able to end on time.

We're going to start with MP Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to go back to Mr. Stapleton and his important work on marginal effective tax rates for the lowest-income people. I had the Library of Parliament do a study on the marginal effective tax rates of disabled people earning minimum wage.

Marginal effective tax rates, for anyone listening who is not familiar with the term, means the amount of money people will lose in taxes and benefit clawbacks on the next dollar they earn. So if an Alberta-based disabled person earning minimum wage, who works 40 hours a week, were to get an extra dollar raise, he or she would lose $1.15. If the person decided to work and earn, let's say, another $100 in a week, he or she would lose $115 in combined benefits, clawbacks, and taxes. In other words, the effective tax rate on the next dollar earned is well over 100%.

I remember the leader of the NDP said he thought it was confiscation if someone would pay a tax rate of over 50%. He was referring to millionaires at that time. But somehow we think it's acceptable that the poorest and most vulnerable people effectively pay a tax rate that is well over 100%.

My question is for you, Mr. Stapleton, because you have been pretty much the leading voice against this injustice. Do you believe the Government of Canada, the federal government, has the jurisdictional right to lead a solution to this problem with other levels of government, given that these effective tax rates are the result of combined policies at multiple levels of government?

[John Stapleton]

Yes, I think it's only the federal government that has the position of leadership, that can look to other levels of government, whether it be the municipalities or the provinces, and look at all those programs together. They're all in silos and they all stick to their own knitting.

It sounds very good on the one hand, but when you have taxation at the federal and provincial levels that combines benefit clawbacks that reduce every dollar that people get—especially from earnings, thinking of the discussion this morning, that result in clawbacks and taxes of over a dollar on a dollar—something is wrong; something is broken. I think it's only the federal government that can actually convene all of the provinces and municipalities and those various programs that do that.

I'll give a plug to the late Mr. Flaherty, who made sure by talking to the provinces that the RDSP, the registered disability savings plan, was not clawed back by other social assistance programs. The same is true of the working income tax benefit that was brought in in 2007, so you see good examples where care was really taken to do this. For those who believe that the federal government can't have influence, there are two particular, pungent examples of where the federal government did lean on the provinces and made sure that those clawbacks did not take place.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The working income tax credit effectively gives people a raise of about 25% on income earnings between, I think, $3,000 and roughly $12,000; and then it is also clawed back at a rate of 15% as you get closer to $20,000 in earnings. It has to be clawed back at some level or else you'd be giving it to millionaires.

But do you have any suggestions, Mr. Stapleton, on how we can improve the working income tax benefit so that it always leaves people better off by working?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We're actually over time, but I'll give you about 10 seconds if you have a thought there.

[John Stapleton]

It's just to convene all the provinces and make sure that all of the clawbacks together—that 15%, which of course has to be there—ensure people always receive a benefit for each marginal dollar earned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go over to MP Sangha.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question will be to Sonia Pace. I live in Brampton and I had my business in Brampton. I know that area is a growing community, the whole Peel, Mississauga, Brampton area of Canada. Thank you very much for coming today and giving us information regarding the Peel region.

With the growing communities such as new immigrants, and we have all the youth problems, and we have all the problems regarding seniors, what steps would you see as Peel region priorities? As a poverty reduction group, what steps would you take for vulnerable groups like immigrants and others? What are the major steps you are taking?

[Sonia Pace]

I'll speak to one group, and it's our recent newcomers, the Syrian refugees. We have a working group together that's knitted by a number of settlement agencies, etc., and faith communities, and whatnot. We are now entering basically what we're calling “month 13”. Many of our newcomers have been here for the one year and have received the federal allowance for the first year, but many are not ready to move on. They've not been able to find employment, etc., for various reasons, and I won't take up time with that. However, this is where we are talking about the transition. There is a federal allowance right now, but after the first year, which is the 12th month, for 13, they have to move into another form of social assistance.

One of the key areas that we're working on is making that transition as seamless as possible, because it's not seamless the way it is now from federal to municipal. We are actually going out there and speaking to all these groups and the faith leaders and meeting with the agencies to be able to successfully transition. If someone loses that opportunity of that one-month allowance, they'll lose their housing, and then we're into shelters. The trickle-down effect is immense.

Those are the kinds of things that we're talking about. Different silos and different levels of government have to talk to each other and make those transitions smoother to not put people in a completely traumatic situation where they aren't housed, etc. That's one example of one group that we're working with right now.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My question is for Adaoma Patterson. You have talked about the local level, those who are working in the communities at the local level, and at provincial, municipal, and federal governments. I agree with you that without connecting with the communities, you can't make any progress in this field.

At the same level, what would you suggest the federal government do for their part in this in the communities?

[Adaoma C. Patterson]

I think a big part of it is looking at what's missing, and what's in common. Most communities have wait-lists for housing. You recently launched a national housing strategy, so what will that do at the provincial and local levels to make sure that people have adequate housing? There are two key areas for people who are experiencing poverty; they are income and then housing. What role does the federal government play in addressing those issues of income? It's the income supports. It's removing the silos, as John talked about, in terms of the marginal tax rate. It's working with the provincial and municipal governments to make sure that your rules around child benefits aren't in conflict with the provincial rules around child benefits.

That silo thing seems like a small thing, but it's huge. For decades, we've worked in our boxes at different levels of government. We rarely come out of those boxes. You have rules around EI; we have rules around social assistance and disability. Who do those rules benefit? Why is it that it's so hard for people to get out of poverty or to move forward? It's because of the rules we put in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to move forward. I'm sorry to cut you off.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

The federal government is working towards that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

MP Sangha, I'm sorry. We're long over time.

Ms. Ashton, you have four minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much.

Again, thank you to all of our witnesses.

Ms. Arte, I have two questions for you.

First, I'm hoping you could speak to the most important actions the federal government could and should take to ensure Canadians get access to the education and training needed to succeed in the job market.

Second, in addition to those concrete recommendations, I'm wondering if you could also perhaps begin by telling us how seriously we should be taking both the demands being made by the Canadian Federation of Students and the reality facing our generation today.