HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
STANDING COMMITTEE
ON
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Committee Room
Guaranteed Basic Income
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek (Chair)
Brad McGowan (Vice-Chair)
Damian Stoilov
Dianne Timmins
Kyle MacQuarrie
Suzy Hansen
Lina Hamid
Hon. Iain Rankin
Hon. Derek Mombourquette
[Brad McGowan was replaced by Tim Outhit.]
[Damian Stoilov was replaced by Adegoke Fadare.]
In Attendance:
Erin Fowler
Legislative Counsel
Tamer Nusseibeh
Legislative Committee Clerk
WITNESSES
Department of Opportunities and Social Development
Craig Beaton, Deputy Minister
Frazer Egerton, Executive Lead, Strategic Initiatives
Basic Income Nova Scotia - BIG-NS
Dr. Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird, Chair
Pierre Stevens, Treasurer
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2025
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SERVICES
10:00 A.M.
CHAIR
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
VICE-CHAIR
Brad McGowan
THE CHAIR: Order. I call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Community Services. My name is Susan Corkum-Greek. I’m the MLA for Lunenburg and the Chair of this committee. I’d like to welcome presenters today as we explore the topic of Guaranteed Basic Income. A reminder to everyone to please switch your cellphones to silent, and that in the case of an emergency, we will use the Granville Street exit and walk up to the Grand Parade.
We’ll now ask committee members to please introduce themselves for the record by stating their name and their constituency. We’ll begin on my left.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: I would like also to note the presence of Legislative Counsel Erin Fowler and Legislative Committee Clerk Tamer Nusseibeh.
Again, the topic today is Guaranteed Basic Income. We will welcome our witnesses. I will ask our witnesses to please introduce themselves, after which we will move into opening remarks. If we can begin on my left.
[The witnesses introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: In terms of opening remarks, I believe we’re going to begin with Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: As we have previously introduced, I’m joined by my colleague Frazer Egerton to speak to you about poverty, affordability, and how government supports those who need help. This is a timely discussion. They are issues on the minds of many Nova Scotians. Poverty is complex. It’s influenced by many factors: intergenerational, structural, historical, but also individual circumstances.
Depending on the size or makeup of your household, where you live, your health status, and your ability to work, your needs will be different, which is why we need flexible solutions, a set of supports that are responsive, targeted, and connected. Tools we have in our toolbox are things like:
· income assistance, which has increased three times in the last number of years and will increase again this January in line with the Consumer Price Index;
· disability support not only from our traditional funding programs, but also with a new disability supplement, which provides an extra $318 per month to over 15,000 income assistance recipients living with disabilities;
· the Path Program, which provides targeted financial support and community connections to young people leaving care right up until their 25th birthday; and
· supportive housing, which includes things like The Rose for families with children, and the Ozanam Place for people over 50 with complex health care needs.
Our staff also drop on programs and services in other departments, like rent supplements, heating assistance rebates, and child care supplements. Government has also implemented affordability measures more broadly to support Nova Scotians: lower taxes, increased minimum wage, and the Nova Scotia School Lunch Program to name a few.
While some programs provide financial assistance, many others focus on removing barriers, creating opportunities, and helping people build long-term stability. That’s what our case workers, care coordinators, and social workers do every single day. They work directly with Nova Scotians in communities across the province to understand their unique circumstances to create the right mix of supports at the right time. It’s a one-size-fits-one approach, and it evolves and changes along with our clients.
We respect that there are models out there like guaranteed basic income, which is the topic of today’s discussion. That’s an approach we have looked at, and we will continue to look at it when new evidence emerges. It’s not something we’re considering right now.
We all want the same thing, at the end of day: to support all Nova Scotians to live with dignity, provide for themselves and their families, and have the same access and opportunities as everyone else. We will continue to advance that mandate with targeted evidence-informed programs that make a real difference in people’s lives.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. We look forward to your questions.
THE CHAIR: Are there additional opening remarks from the department?
I will recognize - Mandy, did you say? That may be too informal, although it sounds lovely. Dr. Kay-Raining Bird, if you would like to make your presentation.
DR. ELIZABETH KAY-RAINING BIRD: Thank you very much for having us today. We really appreciate this opportunity and look forward to the discussion after my presentation. Can you see it?
THE CHAIR: Not yet.
ELIZABETH KAY-RAINING BIRD: Okay, there you go.
I first want to talk about why it’s important for us to have a basic income guarantee, or guaranteed basic income - both are okay ways to address this topic. We need basic income because too many people in Nova Scotia today are suffering. Poverty rates, food insecurity, and food bank use are all rising. Housing prices are out of reach for many, and non-market housing levels are far too low. Many can only find precarious work - work that’s temporary or part-time. Household debt is at an all-time high. All of this is while we’re dealing with economic uncertainties created by tariff wars, environmental degradation, and climate crises, like the last two years and the fires that we’ve had here in Nova Scotia.
Who are the most vulnerable? The traditionally marginalized, such as Indigenous people, African Nova Scotians, the disabled, and perhaps surprisingly, single adults between the ages of 18 and 64. Of course, we are all aware that despite the efforts of governments, income assistance rates in Nova Scotia are low. These are the current income assistance rates. They’re enhanced to some extent for various households by additional federal and provincial benefits and tax credits, as shown in this table. But these are not sufficient to raise people who have no other income out of deep poverty, as the grey lines indicate, for various households in Nova Scotia. As these figures show, despite the efforts of government, these people are not rising above deep poverty levels over time.
Income supports in Nova Scotia are insufficient. They are also difficult to navigate because of the complex system that exists - the various pockets of money that exist that need to be applied for. There are what many people find to be demeaning rules and oversight, and because of the clawback rates, it often disincentivizes work and keeps people in poverty.
I want you also to consider some of these other issues that support the implementation of a basic income. We know that poverty rates, as I just mentioned, are high in Nova Scotia. As the late Progressive Conservative Senator Hugh Segal said, “Poverty is the best predictor of early illness, early hospitalizations, longer hospital stays and earlier death. It is a reliable predictor of substance abuse, food insecurity, poor education outcomes, and for some, trouble with the law.” These issues that are brought on by poverty cost this province a lot of money. One study has shown that the Atlantic provinces spend about $4.5 billion a year on poverty costs. For Nova Scotia specifically, it’s about $2 billion a year in costs related to these difficulties that poverty causes.
There are other reasons for supporting a basic income. Canada, for example, has signed the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. In signing that, we, as a country, have pledged the unequivocal commitment to eradicate poverty. We’re not doing that yet. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls had two basic income calls for action. One was to establish a guaranteed annual livable income for all Canadians, including Indigenous people. The most current report of the National Advisory Council on Poverty emphasized the urgent need for a guaranteed income floor to ensure everyone can live with dignity.
Here in Nova Scotia, many people are calling for a basic income. Here in Nova Scotia, 20 municipalities have passed resolutions in support of a basic income. That covers approximately 85 percent of the population of this province. I know of two more municipalities that are considering such a resolution and many of them have sent letters to the Premier calling for action in this regard. Nova Scotia community health boards across the province are advocating for a basic income.
When we talk about a basic income, what are we talking about? The definition that is embraced by all advocacy groups across the country is a direct payment from government to ensure that everyone has a sufficient income to meet their basic needs. It would preferably be administered through the CRA. It would be income tested, but it would have no other requirements to obtain the benefit. The maximum benefit would be provided to those who have no income, and that benefit would gradually be reduced as income increases. Those with higher incomes, of course, would not receive a basic income.
These are guiding principles that are embraced by advocacy groups across the country, and we hope would be used in developing a basic income. They include:
· an essential basic income should be an essential component of a comprehensive safety net;
· that it should be universally accessible if needed;
· that it should be unconditional, except for income;
· that it be sufficient to meet basic needs, responsive to changing circumstances;
· respectful of autonomy and, of course, respectful of Indigenous self-determination.
There’s been a lot of research that has looked at a guaranteed basic income, both in Canada and in other countries. That research has found a number of things: that it dramatically reduces poverty; that it reduces societal costs, for example: hospital and doctor visits go down, violent crime goes down; that it stimulates local economies; that all work is valued, paid work and unpaid work; that people can take risks; that people have choices; and trust, funnily enough, in government increases with a basic income.
[10:15 a.m.]
Many people feel that people would not work if they had a basic income, but the research shows that’s not true. There is a small reduction in paid work hours, but that can be accounted for largely because people go to school, they stay in school, or take time off to care for family and others. Here are some examples of what people can do with a basic income. It’s fundamentally transformative, they found.
I want to now just suggest a few actions that this committee might take, before I end my presentation, to learn more about guaranteed basic income. First, we would suggest that the committee recommend that an all-party committee be formed to study how a basic income could be implemented here in Nova Scotia. Importantly, the study should include all parties and should look at how it could be implemented in collaboration with the federal government. Secondly, that this committee support and encourage the Nova Scotia government to support the implementation of the P.E.I. project. This is a well-formed description of how basic income could be implemented province-wide. It’s feasible, it’s affordable, and it could be a first step for implementation across the country.
With that, thank you very much. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to our discussion.
THE CHAIR: As we enter the question portion of this morning’s meeting, I will just remind people to wait until I, as Chair, acknowledge you and the red light turns on the microphone, just so we can get a nice, clear recording for the record of what is shared this morning. The first round of questions will begin with the NDP caucus for 20 minutes. MLA Hamid.
LINA HAMID: That was a lot of really important information in that presentation. I’ll start by directing my questions to the department. We’re hearing from a lot of Nova Scotians who are forced to make some very difficult decisions, like whether to heat their homes or put food on the table for their kids. It’s clear that life for Nova Scotians is becoming more and more expensive under this government. People aren’t getting the support that they need.
Nova Scotians work hard and should be able to afford to build their lives here. How is the department planning to respond to the growing needs of Nova Scotians affording the very basics?
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: Obviously, affordability is a concern not only in this province but nationally. We have a variety of tools that we use to be able to support people with affordability. Particularly, I think about some of the work that we’ve done in not only our supportive housing and homelessness areas, but things like diversion funding that are able to provide some immediate support to service providers for those who are facing difficult times. Maybe it’s supporting them with one month’s rent to make sure that they’re able to stay in their home, as an example. Beyond that, I think I’ve referenced a few of them in my earlier comments, in my opening statement - we’ve seen sizable reductions in taxes across the province. That definitely will have a benefit. We’ve indexed income assistance.
The $318 disability supplement that was instituted in 2024 was the largest increase in income assistance that we’ve ever seen. For myself personally, I can tell you in talking to some of our caseworkers, there is one individual I spoke with who is out of the Guysborough office who has worked in OSD for over 30 years. She said it’s the single largest impact that she’s seen for her clients in 30 years.
Those things do add up to make a change and to help people. I think those are some of the areas that we’re seeing some positive support.
LINA HAMID: We do recognize the importance of the Heating Assistance Rebate Program as power bills are going up by hundreds of dollars a year since this government came to power.
Just last week, we heard that even more people are being overbilled by Nova Scotia Power. Additionally, the Heating Assistance Rebate was cut in September, so 46,000 households are no longer eligible. The ones that who continue to be eligible - around 70-some-thousand households - are receiving $200 less than what they were previously getting. Yes, we absolutely see the benefits in those. However, the cuts show that maybe the government does not see the benefit in having those programs in place.
What are your expectations in terms of how this decision to cut the program will impact people reaching out to the department for additional supports because they’re getting behind on their power bills with Nova Scotia Power?
CRAIG BEATON: I can’t actually speak to the Heating Assistance Rebate Program; it’s not something that falls under the Department of Opportunities and Social Development. I think I’d just go back to what I said earlier around our divergent support program. It’s probably important to highlight that over the last couple years, our department has seen growth financially in terms of supports to those not only on social assistance but in all other areas.
I can give you a couple of examples. Our Employment Support and Income Assistance budget increased by 44 percent in the last five years. Our supportive housing and homelessness budget increased by 1,300 percent. It was $3 million; it’s now $130 million. That’s a significant investment, much of which goes directly to service providers to provide divergent supports which you’ve outlined. People can go and seek some additional support to make sure they’re able to meet their basic needs. Our disability support budget increased by 66 percent, and our child and family well-being budget increased by 36 percent.
I do think that shows there is a significant commitment to support those who are vulnerable populations. Hopefully we’ll get an opportunity to talk about some of the other great work that our team is doing as a result of that.
LINA HAMID: The basic income for a single person without a disability is around 700-and-some-dollars but based on the government’s requirements for the housing supplement, a bachelor unit is $1,202. People are purposely being underpaid. We recognize the benefits of these programs, but these programs do not go far enough.
Divergent funding, for example. I worked at a non-profit before; there were several families we were working with who were getting around $6,000 paid a month for an Airbnb rather than just approving them for the rental supplement which would have been around $1,000 at max. We see the benefits of these, but there are holes that are purposely being left there.
I will go into another point, though. In Nova Scotia, food bank queues have gone up by 66 percent since this government was elected in 2021. We also know that a lot of that - the children visiting food banks have also increased. I don’t have the exact number - thought I did - but child poverty is at 14 percent. Nova Scotia’s poverty rate is 12.9 percent. We have one of the highest, if not the highest, poverty rate in Canada. Tying into that, the government had promised a child and youth advocate in 2021 and introduced legislation to create this office in 2024; they have yet to commit to a timeline, a budget, or advocate appointment.
Last month, the government members of this committee voted against our motion to immediately act to create a child and youth advocate in our province which would be able to make some serious recommendations about how we can reduce child poverty rates and take children out of generational poverty. With all of this in mind, provinces which have piloted basic income - people were able to eat more nutritious foods. We saw one of those papers held up in Basic Income Nova Scotia’s presentation.
Based on the increasing demand for food banks and other supports, does this department acknowledge that the current programs and supports for Nova Scotians are not keeping up with the rising cost of living?
CRAIG BEATON: I think I would just go back to what I said previously in my last answer around the sizable increases that I do think are keeping us at least somewhat at pace with the rising costs of affordability. There’s no doubt that affordability is a challenge for all individuals, whether you’re in a vulnerable situation or not.
I would say that some of the things we’re doing - we are providing support to Feed Nova Scotia and the collaborative food networks, as an example. You might have seen the most recent press release last week around government’s decision around using some of the alcohol sales to fund increased support for food insecurity, which we think is a positive step.
We do know that service providers are faced with increasing costs associated with all elements of affordability. Food is one of those. But that’s increased across the country, not just here.
You mentioned about the rising number of child poverty. The data that we have right now do outline a bit of a trend in a positive direction for us. Now, it is very minimal, I will say. However, it does show that we’re one of three provinces that has trended in a positive direction, versus many of the others, from the 2022 MBM data to the 2023. This is the latest data that we’ve had. That is a positive signal.
Again, it’s in retrospect. We’re talking about 2023. I know it’s 2025, so we have to take that into context, but with the investments that I think we’ve seen over the last couple of years, I’m hopeful that that trend will continue. Again, it will depend on how it yields out in the data.
LINA HAMID: I would love to see that data, because the data we’re looking at is not showing that. It’s showing that poverty rates are increasing. Child poverty is increasing. If you’re able to provide that, that would be great.
You’ve mentioned the sizable increases in the government’s budget, but if we’re looking at how people are living, it is not reflected. So while, yes, we appreciate that the budget is increasing, real Nova Scotians are not feeling that. They are not getting the benefits of that increase.
You mentioned that the department is not considering looking into a basic income program. What is preventing the department from even studying the potential of this program?
CRAIG BEATON: I think there are a couple of things - I wouldn’t say preventing. I have said that we do look at it. We will look at all policy items and bring those forward to decision-makers.
I think what we’ve seen so far to date is that our targeted investments - they probably, in our opinion right now, are as effective as what we would see a guaranteed basic income potentially doing, with keeping costs under a certain level as well. That’s one of the things that I think we need to think about.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer for the federal government did a report recently on guaranteed basic income. The numbers that they outlined - there are definitions about what you would talk about in terms of a family size and how that would be considered. I won’t go into all the details around that, but when you look at the costs associated with it, it’s upwards of potentially $2.5 billion to implement a guaranteed basic income in the way that they would have outlined in that report.
The budget for OSD right now is about $1.7 billion. To put that in context, $2.5 billion would be all of our budget plus almost the entire budget of the Department of Seniors and Long-term Care. As policy-makers, we do have to think about the financial realities of the Province when we bring forward recommendations to government for them to consider, and obviously, that would be one of them.
When we look at the outcomes associated with our income assistance programs, as well as the stackable options from other departments - like rent supplements, et cetera - what we see is that there are many people who are receiving benefits who are getting close, if not almost at the MBM line. Now, we do want to decrease the poverty numbers overall, and we’ll continue to look at policy options to that. But one of the main reasons that we’ve sort of held back on looking at a guaranteed basic income is because of the fiscal realities.
[10:30 a.m.]
LINA HAMID: Deputy Minister Beaton, the last time that you were at this committee back in April, you recognized the impact that the federal supports had on child poverty in the early 2020s, which I imagine might be where that data that you’re seeing is coming from. However, when those supports ended, child poverty rose again. Nova Scotians have heard for years that this government plans to create a child and youth advocate, but so far, there hasn’t been any meaningful action to create this position to have an advocate to speak for our children in this province. Again, this is something that was introduced by the NDP in 2018. We’re still seeing nothing.
The previous minister committed to making sure that this position, this office, is stood up under their watch. They’re no longer the minister and the office has not been stood up yet. When will provincial social programs be strengthened so we can actually see an accurate decrease to child poverty in this province?
CRAIG BEATON: I can tell you that the previous minister was absolutely committed to this. The current minister is absolutely committed as well. There’s work under way. We’ve engaged with a number of folks in the community and in the sector around their inputs around what the office will look like. There will be more to say on that probably in the near future. I’m sorry if I missed the second part of your question. If you could maybe just rephrase that.
LINA HAMID: The question is: When will provincial social programs be strengthened to see child poverty rates drop again?
CRAIG BEATON: I’m just going to refer back to what I said earlier. I feel like the department is doing strengthening of programs. We continually look for improvements, whether it’s through feedback loops that we get from our caseworkers on the ground, or whether it’s working with service providers about ways that we can strengthen opportunities in the community. We’re constantly looking at ways to improve.
There are a number of programs that I think we’ve developed over the last few years that I think have had a significant impact in terms of not only addressing some of the needs of those who are feeling like they’re in deep poverty, but also about supporting individuals to try to get closer to the labour market. I’m happy to talk about those if you like.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.
SUZY HANSEN: Just sitting here listening, this is the purpose of the committee: for us to gather information so that we can do the best work for all Nova Scotians. It’s really interesting that we have a government that talks about solutions and ideas and that they’re listening, and here’s the data. There are bills that have been tabled. There’s research that could be done. There are studies that could happen. All it has to do is just implement it in the Legislature to make sure that we do the right thing and do a study to see what it looks like for Nova Scotians.
We all know that we work for Nova Scotians. A majority of Nova Scotians disagree with the way that our OSD system is working right now. My question is going to be for Dr. Kay-Raining Bird. How would a basic income guarantee help folks who find themselves having to decide between housing, food, or heat?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Kay-Raining Bird.
ELIZABETH KAY-RAINING BIRD: MLA Hansen is my MLA, so we have spoken before. I think that is one of the problems with the current situation today. People who are struggling because they’re living in poverty are having to make those very difficult choices. Do I pay for food and feed my family and put my rent aside for the month, and perhaps get evicted from my home because of that? Do I pay rent and not feed my children? These are very difficult decisions - impossible decisions. People should not have to make those decisions. With a basic income, that is at a level that would allow people to meet those basic needs. That includes food. That includes housing. That includes personal needs that people have. What am I forgetting? (Interruption) The Market Basket Measure. They wouldn’t have the energy - paying for energy. They would not have to make those decisions.
I recognize that some people are concerned that if you give a basic income that meets the basic needs, all that will happen is that the cost of those needs will go up, that inflation will increase. I want to say that has not been found with OAS, GIS. Inflation did not increase. That was not found with CCB when it was introduced, and when it was increased, inflation was not caused by CCB. When we see inflationary increases, it’s caused by other factors; right now tariffs are causing the inflation.
You’re in government. You can pass legislation that prohibits bad actors from behaving in ways that could inappropriately increase costs as well. A basic income, as I mentioned before, is one part of a solution. It’s not a panacea, but it’s a necessary component to adequately support people. I hope I answered your question.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen with 45 seconds.
SUZY HANSEN: Last year, the government said it would help Nova Scotians better afford their bills. Basic Income Nova Scotia has been active since 2015, and in that time, has your group ever been consulted by the government of the day - so members of a party in a position of power - to make changes and have you ever been approached to give information?
ELIZABETH KAY-RAINING BIRD: Prior to today and the meeting with this committee, we have not been approached officially by the government. We have spoken with multiple MLAs in our time, working and actively seeking that basic income.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. That ends this particular segment for the NDP caucus. We will move on for 10 minutes allotted to the Liberal caucus. MLA Rankin.
HON. IAIN RANKIN: Thanks for being here today on an important topic. I want to approach this from a fiscal responsibility perspective. It’s no secret that I believe in balanced budgets in the operating of the government, but I did take some interest in this. What interests me is seeing the high levels of poverty across the province. You can look at specific communities and there are huge disparities with some communities. I won’t mention them; I don’t want to stigmatize who they are. I thought of looking at an evidence-based look at this and the cost.
Maybe I’ll start with the advocacy group. You mentioned cost of poverty. I think you mentioned a figure of $2 billion. I wonder how you come up with that figure in terms of homelessness, the health care system, and the justice system. Is that a good calculation based on the Nova Scotia context? Can you just explain the cost of not having a program in this, the cost of poverty to taxpayers in Nova Scotia?
THE CHAIR: Sorry. Your enthusiasm is noted. Dr. Kay-Raining Bird.
ELIZABETH KAY-RAINING BIRD: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I apologize for speaking out of turn.
That’s not a figure that we developed ourselves. It’s a figure that was developed by CCPA, and they did a very careful study that looked at that. It included, for example, health care costs that go over and above the health care costs of people who are not living in poverty, or crime costs that are associated with people who are living in poverty, or intergenerational costs where families struggle their way out of poverty. They calculated it based upon those sorts of issues and came up with that $2 billion.
You’re interested in fiscal responsibility. If we accept - and I would refer you to the CCPA report, because it’s very well done - if we accept that there’s $2 billion in costs that are incurred in the province as a result of people living in poverty, then we need to consider how much it would cost to get a basic income in Nova Scotia. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, as was mentioned previously, has done a number of different studies. The most recent study that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did looked at a different sort of definition of “family,” one in which adult children who are living in the home are counted as part of that family, rather than as a separate family. When you look at that definition of “family,” the PBO found that the cost of a basic income was reduced by, in his findings, about 50 percent. The P.E.I. project study also looked at different definitions of “family” and also found similar results. Their definition of “family” that included children who lived at home also found that there was a reduction in costs of about 40 percent.
With that analysis, the cost of a basic income for Nova Scotia was calculated by the PBO. This is interesting - I don’t know if you received this paper, but it was developed by the Yarmouth County Community Health Board and it was sent to the Minister of Opportunities and Social Development because she was attending a meeting with other ministers also covering the same mandates. They provided very interesting information about the costs and the offsets of a basic income.
The gross cost estimated by the PBO would be $1.55 billion for all of Nova Scotia. But then there are a number of offsets to that cost that could reduce that cost to a net cost that would be far below it. Provinces would need to negotiate with the federal government about what those offsets would need to be. There are a variety of tax credits, for example, that are very small and sometimes temporary, that could be rolled into it. Certainly the costs of social assistance could be rolled into it. That’s what is being proposed for the P.E.I. project. That would reduce the gross costs in the P.E.I. project - province-wide implementation of a basic income - from $189 million to $125 million, just considering social assistance cost reductions.
When you think about the fiscal responsibility, we have to think about both what poverty is costing us already in this province and how we could reduce that, and also what a basic income would cost and how it could be offset by folding in other expenses.
THE CHAIR: MLA Rankin with a little over three minutes.
IAIN RANKIN: I know I’m very limited in time, so I’ll just ask my other question to the department. I’m just wondering - there was some kind of analysis. You mentioned a figure of $2.5 billion in costs, and we have a different figure of maybe $1.55 billion in costs to a program like this. How in-depth did you actually look at the full cost of all the government programs that help support those most vulnerable? Did you look at the administration costs, for example, and the savings you would get from a much more simplified payment that would go out to families?
[10:45 a.m.]
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: I wouldn’t suggest that we went into an in-depth look at the administration costs of other programs that would be administered outside of OSD like the rent supplement, as an example, or the Heating Assistance Rebate Program, child care supplements. We didn’t go into looking at any great extent on that. There are a couple of things to mention. I know that the report that was referenced did outline a minimum value which has been referenced at $1.5 billion, and it is based on the family composition. The other part was $2.5 billion, so it was in that range somewhere.
I do think it probably is important for the committee to know that when we talk about a guaranteed basic income from the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s perspective and what we’ve looked at, it would really mean basically reducing all of the benefits that we currently provide and having one streamlined process. That requires a bit of a dance partner which would require the federal government because a significant number of those investments are actually in the hands of the federal government. We would have to engage in that conversation with them about whether or not they’d be interested.
Our indications from our Atlantic colleagues, particularly in P.E.I., who have referenced the fact that they would like to push forward on a guaranteed basic income of some sort is - our understanding is that they’re not necessarily getting that same level of receptivity from the federal government on the broader piece. We’re talking about reducing tax credits. We’re talking about changing the tax structure. It’s a large topic to talk about in terms of how we would reform that, and I think that’s been, along with the financial implications, one of probably the rate-limiting steps for us in terms of doing a real deep analysis on it.
THE CHAIR: MLA Rankin with 45 seconds.
IAIN RANKIN: I don’t know if I’ll get a question out, but I have noticed anecdotally in my own office over the last number of years the growth of poverty. We now have a food pantry set up right outside that is busy. Anytime I’m in there in the evening, it’s just a steady stream of people and then we have to try to fill it the next day. We know there are energy poverty issues in this province. We have the food insecurity issue. Love to see the report that there is some progress there, but when you see that some communities are at upwards of 40 percent child poverty and even some over 50 percent, something’s not working with our suite of programs. We need to find a way to assess the effectiveness if, despite the growth and supports . . .
THE CHAIR: That ends this portion of the question period. We will now move to the PC caucus who have 30 minutes. MLA Outhit.
TIM OUTHIT: Thank you all for being here this morning to have this important discussion. I’m going to start with a question for the deputy minister. You mentioned a few different things that the department is doing, and you mentioned a toolbox. You mentioned that one size does not fit all. I’m wondering if you can just help us understand a little bit in success stories, but also challenges, with youth. When I say “youth,” I don’t mean just in terms of income but in providing some structure to help them move forward and join the workforce, et cetera. Can you, just for a moment, say how you target this sector in your pre-existing programs?
CRAIG BEATON: You know, unfortunately, the number one indicator of somebody being a recipient of income assistance is whether or not your family’s been on income assistance. We also know that the timeline for people who are receiving income assistance is around 6.5 years. We’ve had a fairly direct focus on trying to reduce that timeline but also trying to support and break that generational cycle.
We’ve had big investments in the last number of years around our - it’s called Employment Support Services; ESS is how we typically refer to it. Apologies for the acronyms here. Our ESS programs particularly are supporting youth and those who would be the dependents of those on income assistance. One in particular program we have is called EDGE, and the EDGE Program provides wraparound supports for those who are children of dependents or the dependents of those who are on income assistance to really target them to be able to figure out the things they need to be able to get them closer to the labour market or actually establish them into the workforce in some meaningful way.
That program started in 2021. We did an evolution in 2024, and 70 percent of the participants we had in that program completed the program. Over 40 percent of those who were in that program found full-time, meaningful work. The numbers are relatively small, in the couple of hundreds, but I do think that it’s a good indicator. We’ve provided a lot of support to our employment support workers to help support these youth. Youth as a focus of those who are dependents on those receiving income assistance does tend to be a significant focus for us.
Employment supports more broadly, I would say, in terms of trying to get people closer to the workforce - everybody comes from a different perspective. Some may be on income assistance because they found themselves running out of employment insurance and not able to find a full-time position or a job; some, there could be life circumstances happening, they find themselves on income assistance for the first time; some could be generational. Those who are on generational are likely to have bigger barriers to being able to enter the workforce. They may not have the technical skills; there could be education and training.
We’ve also worked on a number of programs we’ve had with other academic institutions like NSCC to provide bursary programs for those who would either be in care and custody of the minister or potentially recipients of income assistance to bridge that gap in training to get them closer to the workforce.
TIM OUTHIT: There have been a lot of pilot programs done in other jurisdictions with basic income, and in many cases, they try to specifically target folks with disabilities that are perhaps keeping them from being in the workforce, and of course youth - we’ve touched on that - but youth coming out of foster care and this sort of thing. Can you tell me a little bit about what you’ve heard about those pilots, but also, perhaps what you’re doing as an alternative with that one size doesn’t fit all?
CRAIG BEATON: You are right. There are a number provinces that I would say have piloted some form of what they’re calling a guaranteed basic income. We know that Newfoundland and Labrador is currently doing one for those aged 60 to 64. We understand that Quebec also has one. Both of those are programs that we think are more targeted investments. Similar to what you’ve outlined, in both instances, they are targeted. In the Quebec instance, they already had a program that supported those with disability supports; this is an enhanced program. Anybody who would be qualified for income assistance would be on it. They would be under a disability or a person living with a disability - similarly, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We feel that’s very similar to the investment that we’ve created, which was the $318 disability supplement. It’s $300, but it’s been indexed. It’s very similar in that way. The other program that we know P.E.I. has looked at, and they’ve reached out to us on a number of occasions, is a program called the Path Program. The Path Program is guaranteed income for any youth who would have had to come into care and custody of the minister for a duration of time. They’re now able to get up to six years of financial support, which is tailed off up until the age of 25 to recognize the difficulty of not only being a child in care, but also transitioning into adulthood.
The Path Program offers them financial stability. In many ways, it is a guaranteed income for them as they age into 25. Beyond just that, we also have a number of other programs that we would look to support them while they’re in the Path Program. One in particular that we’re really pleased about is post care and custody agreements, where we will work with those youth. We have a number of really great success stories of individuals who are engaging in post-secondary education, whether it’s through our college system or universities. Tuition and their cost of living are supported as a result of their time living in care under the minister’s custody.
TIM OUTHIT: That’s very helpful and very encouraging. I think MLA Rushton is going to take over.
THE CHAIR: MLA Rushton.
HON. TORY RUSHTON: Thank you, everyone, for being here this morning. I just want to carry on about the conversation about costs and how things would look in Nova Scotia. I’ve had many conversations with constituents for and against the idea of a guaranteed basic income, but Deputy Minister, as you’ve recognized, there would have to be some things that change in the province if you were to go to it. Can you go a little more in depth about that, recognizing the fact that there is also a budget line cost to that?
When we sit down with this budget, you need to know what you’re going to be budgeting out for the whole year. There are demands from many departments, but you’ve also recognized that there are other departments that are facing the affordability challenge. An example you used that’s not your department is the Heating Assistance Rebate Program, and there are many others in the department. Would there actually be a savings in the budget line as well, or are we actually taking away from the ones who are at poverty if we were to do one line item versus all the array of programs that the government does avail?
CRAIG BEATON: You know, anybody living in poverty is troubling for us and the department, but you’re right. With any policy decision that we would bring forward, we have to weigh a number of items. One is obviously the impact to the targeted group that we’re supporting. Broader Nova Scotians are also another. Fiscal responsibility, because we are public stewards of taxpayers’ money. We do have to bring those and put a lens on that when we would bring any recommendation forward into government.
The data that we’ve had so far does outline that the potential impact of moving into a stream where we would have a guaranteed basic income might be too cost prohibitive at this current time. That’s one of the lenses that we would apply to it right now. We would need to do a deeper analysis to see what all the ins and the outs are, but we’ve looked at a guaranteed basic income in the context of - there are a couple of terminologies, I guess, if I just rewind back when we talk about guaranteed basic income. You have a guaranteed annual income which we feel is very similar to our income assistance. Then you have a universal basic income which, under that kind of model, everybody would receive some form of a payment, no matter what their earnings were. Higher income earners would actually pay that back through taxes.
In the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, one of the areas that we’ve looked at is certainly by enhancing the guaranteed basic income, you will see that it does lift those who are closer to the poverty line to some great extent. When we look at those across the spectrum of employment and those wage earners and taxpayers across Nova Scotia, there actually would be a significant strain on a number of other areas in order to cover the cost associated with it, according to his report. Many of the middle class would end up losing money, according to that report from what our interpretation would be. Those are some of the factors we would weigh as we would bring forward any type of recommendation on how we would look forward on whether a guaranteed basic income would be something we’d want to pursue further.
TORY RUSHTON: Thank you for the answer and the update. I guess further in my thoughts and in conversations, would you be able to give an example of what a monthly or even an annual income would be for a single person or even a family of a couple and one child, of what this may look like for the annual income? I know there were a couple conversations, but I haven’t heard a firm number yet.
CRAIG BEATON: We did do some analysis on this. I’m just seeing if I have it in my notes. I’ll try to go off memory here. When we looked at - it’s one of the things, actually. Our new minister has asked us this question a couple of times, so we’ve tried to pull together some numbers on it. If you do look across - one of the things that’s not considered in child poverty rates, as an example there, are things like school lunch. Those are not categorized in the MBM. We know that if you’re a family that’s using the school lunch program, that’s about $1,000 a year that you can say is going toward - if you’re not. It's a pay-as-you-go system, but that’s just an example.
[11:00 a.m.]
In terms of looking at a single mother as an example with two youth, if I look at the standard household rate for that individual, they’d be roughly around a little over $1,000 per person. When you take in some of the other tax incentives that are provided, both federally and provincially, like the Canada child benefit or the Nova Scotia Child Benefit, that’s about an additional $1,200 per month. Then if you add on a rent supplement, which many of them would be qualified for - and our income assistance caseworkers would be pushing them to try to be able to work through with Housing - we’d be looking at roughly - and if you add up and you stack all those pieces together, we’d be looking at a total annual income for that individual of roughly $44,000. If you add in a few other incentives - like our school supplies supplement, the GST rebate, the Nova Scotia Affordable Living Tax Credit, as an example - you’re roughly at about $46,000.
Now, I’m not suggesting that that’s a huge income, but when we compare relative to the Market Basket Measure, which is the key measure nationally for poverty, that’s 99 percent of the Market Basket Measure. When we look at - I think that’s one of the things that we don’t maybe do well, is look across government when we’re thinking about these programs. When you think about the stackable aspect that many of these individuals might be able to qualify for, it does get them very, very close, if not at, what it would be suggested at a national level of what the Market Basket Measure would be.
If I flip that - I know we had done a second one and it’s very similar to this, but if I looked at a person who’s living with a disability and unable to work, and we know that there is usually an increased cost to care for those individuals, which is why the $300 disability supplement was instituted. Very similarly, if I looked at the stackable levels, the annual assistance for those individuals, if they’re able to avail themselves of these - and our caseworkers would work with them on ensuring that they had access to these - they’re actually above the MBM, at about $113,000.
Now, this is just an example. I’m not saying every situation is the same. I guess all that to be said - we don’t have a targeted basic income. We have income assistance and we have targeted subsidies that we feel do help us get to a better place when you look at how it impacts on the total Market Basket Measure.
TORY RUSHTON: I’ll share some time with my colleague to the right.
THE CHAIR: MLA Fadare.
ADEGOKE FADARE: Thank you, everyone. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the incredible work everyone is doing.
I just want to be clear. What I hear today seems to be that we’re hearing record high numbers are being invested into ECI budget, 44 percent increase; 66 percent increase into disability support programs; 1,300 percent into housing and homelessness programs; and 36 percent into the child and family well-being budget. I think these are incredible numbers. Even when we’re not where we need to be, we obviously can see that we’re moving in the direction that we need to go.
I want to ask the executive lead to please help us define “poverty.” There are a lot of definitions that are being used around several ways poverty is being measured. I want you to give us a good understanding of what they use the (inaudible) the Market Basket Measure, the LICO, the LMI. It can be very confusing for a lot of us. I want you to please explain what the main differences are and how we should use this to interpret those measures when it comes to Nova Scotia’s data that we’re listening to today.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Egerton.
FRAZER EGERTON: Thank you for your question, genuinely. I’m delighted to try to take a stab at this.
In Canada, there tend to be one of three measures that gets deployed, and they’re the three you’ve invoked. LICO is the low income cut-off. It really is an old measure that does not tend to get used anymore. It was a measure of whether or not you spend a greater percentage of your income on key essentials, on your basic needs - what the average would be. Honestly, you rarely see LICO nowadays.
The two that you see more often haven’t been updated in a fair amount of time. The two you’ll see most often are LIM - the Low-income measure - and MBM - the Market Basket Measure. It’s quite refreshing that everyone on the panel is referring to the one measure. I think it is important that when we’re talking about these issues - if we start using a lot of different data points, a lot of different understandings of poverty, we’ll never move off a discussion about what the rate is onto what you actually do to combat it.
The Market Basket Measure is Canada’s official measure of poverty. What it does is it’s administered by the federal government, and they look in - I forget how many regions there are nationally, but there are five within Nova Scotia. It looks at the cost for a family - it looks at various different household compositions - to afford your basic needs within a particular geographical area. It’s quite specific. It looks at what the average rent might be for an appropriate number of rooms for your household; it looks at how much clothing is; it looks at transportation costs. That would vary in rural areas where it looks at the cost of a modest car and gas compared to, in this case, HRM at least, which would have access to public transit.
It calculates how much that would cost. Quite simply, if you’re above that line, you’re not in poverty, and if you’re below that line, you are in poverty. We’re quite blessed in Canada to have a robust measure of poverty, and it’s a good understanding of what poverty actually means.
The other one is the Low-income measure. I would say that is not a measure of poverty; it’s a measure of relative income. That is the percentage of people who live with less than 50 percent of the median national income. The problem there is probably pretty obvious straight away: We do not live in a country in which incomes are evenly distributed. Our Low-income measure will fluctuate massively, frankly depending on things like the price of oil in Alberta and the levels of income that come as a result of that.
Three measures - one has fallen by the wayside, and one is really not a measure of poverty; it has some utility if you want to measure between two countries where one doesn’t have a similar measure of poverty, but really not helpful in a Canadian context. The other one is the Market Basket Measure, which is a really thorough and robust assessment of what poverty might actually be.
ADEGOKE FADARE: Thank you for that definition. I think it’s very important for us to have an understanding of what that looks like in terms of what poverty looks like, and also, we’re all using the same terms and we’re not out of proportion. I know there’s been a lot of debate around guaranteed basic income. We’ve seen all the provinces try different measures. They’ve experimented with - we’ve had some cases. I want us to be able to go a bit more into those details. I know for a place like British Columbia, for example, they’ve tried something like this before. I know we talked around estimates from the Parliamentary Budget Office around how much it would cost Nova Scotia. I know it’s supposed to be around $2.5 billion, even though I think we’re within a range based on what Mandy tried to explain to us earlier.
What would we say as a department that we’ve learned from these other experimental measures that already exist? I think sometimes, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. I know there’s a desire to see the best ways to experiment. What are the lessons we’ve learned from some of these jurisdictional scans that we’ve done? I think there was somewhere like - Ontario did one. I can’t remember what year it was - where they realized it was difficult for the province to (inaudible). We referenced P.E.I., where we had (inaudible) probably this doesn’t have an appetite for it. These are the feelings we get.
I don’t know if the deputy minister could speak regarding: What have we learned as a department, as a government, regarding these other experimental measures that are taking place not just across Atlantic Canada, but across Canada as a whole?
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton. I think that was directed to Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: I think my colleague’s going to take this one.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Egerton.
FRAZER EGERTON: I’d say first and foremost, the term “basic income” often gets applied to pilots which are quite different. I think you invoked Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec. I don’t see a great difference between what they’ve done and what Nova Scotia has done in terms of a regular rate for the majority of social assistance applicants or clients, and then an augmented amount for specific demographics - in the case of Quebec, those who face significant barriers to gaining employment, for example, or in Newfoundland and Labrador, an age criteria. They’re often termed “basic income.” If they are basic income, I’d suggest that Nova Scotia has a basic income.
In the case of, say, the old Manitoba pilots or the more recent Ontario pilot, they are more, I think, akin to what my colleagues across the table here are perhaps getting to, which is a more universal approach. What are the learnings from those? There are genuinely going to be positives to these types of things. I think some of them have been mentioned. They offer definite predictability. They offer stability. They are administratively simple. But there are downsides to them. I think we should be able to acknowledge what the positives might be and acknowledge the things that might be detrimental or things that may need to be overcome.
Overwhelmingly, the first one is cost. That PBO study was 75 percent of LIM. If you apply that in Nova Scotia, according to the study, you would see a 10 percent diminishment in the rate of poverty. We’d move from 11.5 percent to 10.4 percent. At that rate, it does not eradicate poverty. It reduces it. I’m not going to diminish that, but it’s not - someone referenced a panacea. It’s not a panacea for all issues of social assistance and poverty. That does come at a significant cost. It’s $1.6 billion, depending on one definition, and $2.6 billion depending on a different definition of what a family composition is. It comes at a massive cost.
I appreciate that people talk about longer-term savings on that, but we would - someone would have to consider where that $1.6 billion or $2.6 billion comes from immediately. In that report, the mainstay of that would be getting rid of the personal basic exemption at both the provincial and the federal levels. That is hundreds of thousands of Nova Scotians who would forgo that and pay taxes immediately, which obviously would be an important consideration both economically and politically for those who get to decide on these things.
The deputy minister did reference there - the report does a good job of dividing between the quintiles - whichever one you implemented, the $1.6 billion or the $2.6 billion, it would definitely improve things for the lowest-income quintile. Everybody else would pay for it.
When we assess these things, I think sometimes it’s seen as the very wealthiest would pay for it, but in the PBO modelling, it is the - roughly speaking - 80 percent of Nova Scotians who, because of those tax changes and the amending of those credits, would be called upon to fund this. It’s a balancing act that people would have to make a determination of.
The last thing I would say is that there is an estimate in there about the cost of people working or otherwise as a result of that. They call it reduced hours exiting entirely from employment. Their estimates - I have to defer to those, because these are highly trained economists and I am not - would be about 1.5 percent of the total. That’s about $129 million or $240 million of lost labour as a result of implementing, but it remains a relatively modest basic income modelled on Ontario’s pilot.
I think there are some important lessons to be learned there. I think ultimately this becomes a very political choice about whether or not the costs and benefits are in favour of a basic income.
ADEGOKE FADARE: It clearly can’t be done without the federal government. You need their persuasion. We also need to have a lot of laws rewritten for that to even happen in the first place. But you cite Ontario. One thing was clear - I think they actually abandoned it at some point in time. I think they didn’t go forward with the study, if I recall correctly.
I just want to quickly ask my last question around disability. People with disabilities continue to face significant barriers within our society. I think that is clear. We know that that’s not new. We know the government has a responsibility to help support people with such disabilities.
Can you walk us through that, DM, through the support (inaudible) chronic (inaudible) people living with disabilities, specifically, what impact the Remedy work will have as it moves forward?
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton.
[11:15 a.m.]
CRAIG BEATON: The Remedy is really transforming the system in terms of how we’re going to support persons with disabilities. There will be a number of opportunities there for individuals. Currently, we have a number of programs that we provide, whether it’s Flex program in-home supports for people to live at home. We’ll be moving towards an independent, individualized funding model. What that will do is provide a certain allotment of funding to those individuals based on the complexity of their needs to be able to utilize for their everyday living, really giving them dignity and independence.
The number one piece behind that is choice. They’ll be able to choose where it is that they live, but also what they spend their time doing. Individualized funding will really revolutionize the way persons with disabilities are supported.
ADEGOKE FADARE: I’d like to defer to my colleague Kyle.
THE CHAIR: MLA MacQuarrie.
KYLE MACQUARRIE: Nova Scotia has not traditionally scored well on poverty measures, specifically general poverty rate and child poverty rate. We’ve talked about where those numbers sit now, but how have they changed over the last five and 10 years. Are we seeing the impact of the programs that you’ve described that have recently been implemented? How do we see them, and what does the future look like with those programs?
THE CHAIR: Mr. Egerton.
FRAZER EGERTON: Thank you for your question. Shout out if I forget the second part of it because I worry that I’m going to. Nova Scotia has not traditionally fared well in either general poverty measures or the child poverty specific measures, relative to the rest of Canada. It’s probably something that does not sit well with anyone around this table. It is somewhat a function of Nova Scotia’s historical economy. It does not mean that things cannot be improved.
The most recent data for 2023 has Nova Scotia at 11.5 percent in general poverty rate. That is the fifth highest or lowest, depending on how you want to look at it, in the Canadian context. There are four better and four worse. In child poverty, again in 2023 data, Nova Scotia is fourth lowest, so fourth best in child poverty measures. I’d say still stubbornly high, but to the deputy minister’s point, both have seen a decline since the previous year.
How they’re going in terms of trends: The child poverty data has come down significantly in 10 years. I’m going to leave aside the CERB with the pandemic . . .
THE CHAIR: Sorry to interrupt you. That ends this particular portion of the questioning. In order to make the most of our time, we’re going to divide the remaining time seven-seven-fourteen. I will move to the seven minutes for the NDP caucus. MLA Hansen.
SUZY HANSEN: I want to clarify two things: When we talk about budget increases to OSD, which is great that there’s more funding available, we also have to recognize that the budget went up because of need. There was a need for these services, and we had to invest in these costs for people to be able to have some additional funding in order to survive.
The other piece that I want to talk about when we talk about funding and being fiduciary, this government spends money like water without oversight. Instead of spending this money on people who need it the most, who are struggling, here we see that we’re talking about dollars for people’s lives and their livelihood and their dignity. I also want to point out when we mentioned targeted groups and how this will take away from those folks if we implement or even do a study on how we pilot something like this, targeted groups would not be a target anymore, because you lift folks out of poverty and you give them that dignified life.
My question for OSD: Nova Scotia’s total spending on social safety net programs is the lowest per capita in the country. We are one of only two provinces without a child and youth advocate to speak for and on behalf of children in our province. Knowing that Nova Scotia has rising food bank use and the highest poverty rate in the country, what is your department doing to make sure Nova Scotians can better afford their bills? I’ve heard there are all these targeted programs that people have to jump through hoops to get to and access - and don’t be $2 over the amount that you can earn, because then you’ll be cut off without any question. I’m wondering: How is the department doing the work to help folks better afford their bills in this upcoming year and forward?
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: I’m not sure about the lowest per capita. I’d have to see the numbers on that. Maybe at some other point we can chat about it. I don’t know. In terms of supporting individuals, one of the things that we have done is we’ve increased the earned exemption amount for those who are actually on income assistance to make sure that they’re able to work and keep more of their funding. That is one of the primary drivers.
We have roughly 37,000 people receiving income assistance. It’s about 25,000 households. Fifteen thousand of those households are now receiving the increased disability supplement - which I will go back to from my earlier comments - which was the largest increase that we’ve ever seen. That’s not just from my perspective. That’s directly from caseworkers whom I’ve talked to in the field talking about how it impacts their clients.
The caseworkers who we have in the department are very empathetic individuals who are trying to work with these people. They see them day in and day out. If you go into a regional office, you can feel that they’re actually out there trying to support these individuals. When somebody tells me it’s the biggest impact - and we can see it, and they’re very emotional about the fact that this had happened - I take their word for that.
Beyond that, one of the main focuses we’ve had is about trying to get people back into the workforce. We know meaningful employment is really important for people. It’s not only mental health, but also for helping support them out of poverty. We’ve seen a 51 percent increase in those taking up our earned income exemption programs, and we’ve seen a 39 percent increase in people accepting supports through our employment support programs. It’s not just about the income assistance; it’s about the wraparound supports that I think our caseworkers actually provide to be able to support these individuals on a case-by-case basis.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hamid.
LINA HAMID: Before I go into my question, there are just a few things from the previous answers that I would like to highlight. Mentioning that the MBM is the best way to measure poverty - which is great to hear from folks in this office - we would love to see how that’s taken into consideration when the income assistance rates are so far below that. Talking about supportive housing: only 3.5 percent of housing in Nova Scotia is actually non-market housing.
Talking about HARP, the rent supplement, and the child care supplement - HARP has been reduced; the rent supplement we were told by folks in the department dried up five months into the fiscal year; and child care in Nova Scotia, families are paying double what is being paid in comparable provinces. While I appreciate the conversation about Ontario, we need to talk about comparable provinces, such as other Atlantic provinces.
If I could ask Deputy Minister Beaton to table the calculations that somebody on disability would receive stackable benefits of $113,000. I’m not sure how they would even be eligible for any supports if you’re saying they receive $113,000.
Lastly, I just want to say I really appreciate the transparency that this is a political decision. Obviously, political will is what’s missing here, and empathy doesn’t pay bills. Just wanted to put those out there before I get to my question, which is for Basic Income Nova Scotia.
Manitoba tested a basic income program back in the 1970s that was designed to supplement the incomes of working people who were struggling to keep up with the cost of living. The former minister of this department had famously said that the best social program is a job. Would you expect to see working Nova Scotians benefiting from basic income if it was implemented in our province? What do you think about the previous minister’s suggestion, that the best social support is a job?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Kay-Raining Bird with 40 seconds.
ELIZABETH KAY-RAINING BIRD: Forty seconds. Not all people have job opportunities, so not everybody can get a job. Would people who work benefit from a basic income? Absolutely. It’s all in the design of a basic income. If you reduce the benefit in a manner that - well, typically, you reduce the benefit in pilots by 50 percent. What that means is that people will always benefit from working, and . . .
THE CHAIR: I’m sorry to interrupt you, but that ends that segment. As somebody who’s had to answer in Question Period in 45 seconds, I feel for the task that was thrown at you.
We will move to MLA Rankin.
IAIN RANKIN: As I was saying last time, we’re seeing growth in supports. I don’t think anyone’s questioning that. But there doesn’t seem to be that corresponding decrease in the metrics around the poverty rates - food insecurity, and we still have some of the highest rents in the country, certainly in Halifax.
We have all of these programs that are supposed to help, and they fall under different departments. We have the Department of Growth and Development spending $75 million on rent supplements, and then we have the Heating Assistance Rebate Program - another $77 million in another department. But who in government is actually assessing these programs to make sure that they help?
There are examples of working people - a cashier at a store in Timberlea makes minimum wage, works full time, and is not able to access the Heating Assistance Rebate Program. How does that happen, where we are removing 40,000-some people who are trying to get by from the supports they need to pay their power bill? I just find it interesting, to say the least, that your department that’s tasked with helping people doesn’t have your hands on making sure that these programs are keeping up, to make sure that we’re putting a dent in the problem that we’re seeing in front of us.
Which department is really looking at these programs? A decision was made to cut that program, and there are a lot of people suffering, I think, from that. Does your department have a handle on the effectiveness of these programs?
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: I can speak for the programs that we offer at Opportunities and Social Development. We do evaluations on our programs periodically. We have an evaluation team that does that work, and where and when we see gaps or limitations, we work to try to close those. We’re always looking at our programs from an outcomes perspective, in terms of whether they are meeting the best outcomes that were previously designed, and we’ll make recommendations or changes, potentially, to those programs.
In terms of - I’ll go back on the Heating Assistance Rebate Program that you’ve talked about. Again, not our department - I don’t want to just pass the buck on that one, but it’s not something that we would have any control over, because we don’t actually administer the program. We do know that there are clients of ours who would be on income assistance and would probably avail themselves of some of those programs.
In terms of the broader context of evaluating all of the government programs - those are done individually at the department level.
IAIN RANKIN: I guess the comment to that is that there should be someone in government who has a true picture of assessing the problem so it’s not segmented in different - we do this for economic development, if it’s a priority, or health care. There’s a table of deputy ministers that looks at programs. I just don’t see any program evaluation at all during the tenure of this government, whether it’s trying to address poverty or other big problems.
One other thing that stood out to me is the mention of the generational trend and families that are on social assistance, that their children end up on social assistance. What are we doing about that? Some of the communities that I referenced that have - the average, you said, is 11.5 percent, but we have communities that, over generations, are at 50 percent. Something is not working here.
What are we going to do about this severe and persistent problem in families - not because of anything they did, but in fact the institutions have failed them - the government of Nova Scotia. What are we going to do to address these pockets of our fellow Nova Scotians - these communities that just can’t get out of this cycle? What is the department doing about that?
[11:30 a.m.]
CRAIG BEATON: I might take that in two points. I would say that from an evaluation perspective, certainly at OSD, we are doing that work. I would highlight back to the increases that we’ve seen. Those increases - obviously, there’s a budgetary process. You’d be familiar with how that works. There are requests to government for additional support based on the analysis that we would have coming from not only our individual policy shop work, but also feedback from clients and also from service providers. I do think that as part of that work that we’ve done and the evaluation, what you’ve seen is translated into increased investments in a variety of areas, and therefore increased impact in the community.
A reference was made earlier around supportive housing. The need was obviously there, and therefore, we had to put it out there to figure out how we’re going to do this. A 172 percent increase in supportive housing numbers since 2020 - that is a staggering number. I recognize that it’s not a huge number of market housing, but if we didn’t have that, where would we be? So I do think that these investments do matter. We can always do more. It is a balance between trying to balance all of the inputs and the initiatives across government, but 585 new emergency shelter beds established in that same time period - these are significant investments that do have an impact on trying to get people who are facing hard realities and in vulnerable situations into a better place.
Those are some of the metrics that we would look at. We have an outcomes process within our department. We have what we call outcomes measures that we manage each of our core areas around. One of those is around reducing the time that people are on income assistance. It’s just recently been established that 6.4 years is obviously really concerning to us. We want to try to break that generational cycle, which is why we’ve instituted programs like directly supporting youth of those who are on income assistance.
We’ve seen some really remarkable case studies. I could talk to you about anecdotes, and maybe just one to leave the committee with. A woman was on income assistance for predominantly her whole life. Both of her sons got on the EDGE Program, and they’ve inspired her to actually go through the ESS program. Now she’s working part-time as well. That is part of that change of breaking the generational cycle. It takes time, for sure.
THE CHAIR: MLA Rankin, seconds. Sorry. We will move on to the final question allotment - 14 minutes. MLA MacQuarrie.
KYLE MACQUARRIE: Maybe I’ll give Mr. Egerton a chance to answer the question that he was in the middle of when time ran out before about the changes in rates and the impact that the department’s programs have had.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Egerton.
FRAZER EGERTON: People may live to regret giving me a second chance to speak, but I’ll do my best. We referenced the data point. I forget exactly what it was, but the rate of child poverty declined significantly over a 10-year period - I don’t have it exactly in front of me - somewhere close to 20 percent to around 11, 12 percent now. The general poverty rate has decreased over that time, but is, I concede, stubbornly high. I think I referenced we’re fifth in the general poverty rates and fourth lowest in the child poverty rates for 2023.
Our department plays a significant role in that diminishment and in taking on the issue of poverty. We oversee some of the key levers. Income assistance has been mentioned. I think the Nova Scotia Child Benefit, along with its federal counterpart, is key in addressing child poverty. I’d also stress others play a role in this. To the MLA’s point, it is across things like financial transfers, economic development writ large, immigration, access to education, minimum wage - all of these things combined play a role in reducing and combatting the rates of both poverty and child poverty.
As I recall, there was a question about where this might go in the future. I would hesitate to predict or forecast where poverty rates will go. I feel like I will be reminded of whatever forecasting I made when I’m inevitably wrong. I will say that the deputy minister has spoken to our staff in OSD. The overwhelming number of our clients and participants are low-income - almost all of them. You don’t work in OSD unless this is paramount to you and it’s something that you take seriously. ou live and breathe it, and you really want to try to reduce the numbers who are living in poverty and increase the numbers who can meet their basic needs. I won’t predict a rate, but I will suggest that we will continue to work very hard to make sure that more Nova Scotians are able to meet their basic needs. Not to discount the adults, but with a particular focus on the children, the youth there, because really, the key to this is going to be how you break into generational poverty. It starts by reducing the number of children who live in poverty.
THE CHAIR: MLA Rushton.
TORY RUSHTON: I’ve heard a couple comments about whether a program would disincentivize productivity in the workforce and, in the end, the productivity of the province. I’ve also heard a couple comments about the need for good jobs for Nova Scotians. I guess I have a two-part question, and I’d like to follow up with the department on any stats that you may have on this.
As we know, during the pandemic, the Auditor General had actually come out and said that it actually disincentivized the work. That’s what it was created for - for obvious reasons during that. With a province where automation isn’t a significant factor in our workforce, would the department look at this as being a disincentivization process for our workforce and, in the end, being a disincentive for the productivity? I heard you say some numbers, but I didn’t quite hear what the high numbers were, or what the actual numbers were on that.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Egerton.
FRAZER EGERTON: Can I just clarify? Is it in terms of automation or in terms of the responses to the pandemic and a basic income? (Interruption) The latter.
THE CHAIR: Sorry, Mr. Egerton. Are you clear on the question?
FRAZER EGERTON: I think so. If not, you can feel free to correct me.
Having just said not great at forecasting, I’ll say where automation may go - a similar reservation about forecasting the impact of that. I would say that we work very closely on labour trends with our friends from the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, and LSI in particular. It is clearly going to be a disruptive force, the extent to which the exact jobs that will be changed as a result of automation is very hard to predict.
I think the best thing we can do is twofold: to work with HR analysts and economists as we do from other departments to help guide us in terms of what the trends going forward might be. The second thing is that we have a cohort of 25,000 ESIA cases. That includes far more than 25,000 people. One of the foremost jobs there is just to support those individuals to develop the skills, the experiences, the qualifications that will be needed that allow them to withstand changes in the economy such as automation going forward. It really is a - laser-focused maybe a little strong, but a real focus on providing and supporting those clients in gaining the skills and experiences required to compete and participate in whatever the economy is in the future.
TORY RUSHTON: Automation was a little secondary to it, but it was just the idea of the program. Would it disincentivize the productivity of the province - the productivity of the workforce? I know you shared some numbers earlier. I’m recognizing the time. I think my colleagues have some other questions. I’d just follow-up with that.
We’ve heard talking about jobs today. I’ve been involved with the industry where automation did take place. In actual fact, we didn’t lose workforce. We actually enhanced the jobs that the workforce was able to do. Productivity went up and created more jobs, and actually more people came into the industry that I was involved with. So it was a win-win situation.
The secondary follow-up to that question is: Would it be fair to say that the focus we’ve been on as a government across all departments where affordability is key in mind for every department - we have programs in different departments. Would it be fair to say that our focus right now should be on growing the economy, growing the productivity of the province, and creating more good-paying jobs for all Nova Scotians, and maintain and always look at the programs that we do have available through every department, and focus on growing the economy, so those good-paying jobs are available to everyone, whether it’s automation or different technologies that come into play?
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: I think in terms of the work that we’re doing at the department in growing the workforce - particularly those who are on income assistance - we see huge opportunities there. We know there’s demand. Not every individual is going to be able to work. We know some are on disability support for a reason, but that doesn’t mean that there is not an opportunity to think differently about how they might be able to contribute. Things like increasing the earned income exemption have been a big benefit. It’s obvious in terms of the enrolment and the increase in people taking that up, that there is a desire for people wanting to be participating in the workforce. People don’t find themselves on income assistance because they want to be there. It’s a difficult place to be when you’re struggling to make ends meet.
Our focus on increasing employment supports and working with departments like Labour, Skills and Immigration around - are there ways we can think differently about supporting those on income assistance through things like apprenticeships, as an example, and direct entry programs into the workforce? Those are all areas that I think we want to move in, and places that we’re having conversations right now with our colleagues.
I think it is fair to say that a focus on growing the economy is obviously key. It was referenced earlier about significant poverty rates in various parts of the province. A lot of that does revolve around economic disparity in those communities, and providing social supports is not going to be the avenue to be able to grow those communities. It’s going to have to be done through other government responses. Growing the economy in those areas is certainly a key feature of that.
THE CHAIR: MLA Outhit with roughly four minutes.
TIM OUTHIT: I love hearing about change, and I love hearing about how we adapt to feedback that we receive. Everybody around this table receives feedback from recipients, and that feedback is passed on to your departments. I’d just like to hear a little bit about what you’ve done lately to change how you deliver services.
THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Beaton.
CRAIG BEATON: We get feedback from clients, from service providers frequently. We do try to adapt to make changes within our processes. A couple of examples I think I could lean on recently - one is we have a special needs program as part of our income assistance, which can qualify for things like health care payments. It could be a variety of different things. There are over 50 different things that could be potentially marked under that. It can be administratively burdensome, as you can imagine, in terms of the back and forth. Receipts have to be received, have to be submitted for proof of purchase, all of those things.
In the last month, we made some changes based on feedback we had from our caseworkers, but also from recipients, so removing the need for receipts for special need payments for those things under $200, as an example. Some of it helps administratively, but also, it can be burdensome for some clients. Also, many of them face stigma for some of the needs that they’d be asking for.
Another one was a permanent change that we made just this year. In the last two years, we recognized the increased costs associated with families and bringing their children back into school and the cost of school supplies. We had previously done a 25 percent increase on the special payments for school supplies, and we changed that in 2025 for a permanent increase of over $100. Well, depending on the age, there are levels, but I think it’s $100 up to $200 based on the age of the individual child and what school they’re attending. That was another one.
[11:45 a.m.]
Another one would be the land titles that are currently happening. It’s part of our Afrocentric review that was done across our ESIA programs. Many of those historic communities have not had land titles, or they’re currently undergoing that, and recognize that they may not have the title at this point. But if they are receiving income assistance, sometimes they’re eligible for and can be assessed for supports around things that might be in arrears or property taxes, et cetera. To be able to assess those, typically you have to have a land title.
As a result of this process, what we’ve done is to say to any of those communities that are currently going through the land titles process that we’ll exempt those from that, assuming that the land title is there to be able to facilitate that change quicker.
THE CHAIR: MLA Outhit with one minute.
TIM OUTHIT: Can we give my time to our witnesses to make some final comments?
THE CHAIR: We can certainly move on. I think that’s fair and appropriate to give our witnesses today that opportunity. Deputy Minister Beaton may need a drink of water, so perhaps if the folks from BIG-NS - Dr. Kay-Raining Bird, would you like to make some closing comments?
ELIZABETH KAY-RAINING BIRD: Yes, I would. Thank you very much. I found this an interesting meeting. I wanted to bring forward a number of issues that were touched upon today and haven’t really been talked about in some detail. One of them is this. In Canada, we have targeted basic income programs already. We have OAS and GIS, and those are for people 65 years and up. When OAS and GIS - when the two of them were implemented, the rate of poverty dropped dramatically for people who are that age. It went from being the highest of age groups to the lowest of age groups.
Now, OAS and GIS aren’t necessarily keeping up with inflation - and that’s a problem - but it remains that that population is supported in ways that younger adults are not supported. The people who have been left out are adults who are 18 to 64 years of age. That tends to be the focus of basic income programs.
Another targeted basic income program that’s been implemented - and this goes back to your comment about what we’re talking about when we talk about a basic income - this wouldn’t be a full basic income program, but the CCB is also a program that targets particular individuals, provides income support through their families for children, and in so doing, the research has shown that the poverty rates for children have dropped because the families are recipients of that income assistance program. The primary income assistance that’s received - even though there’s been some provided by the Province - is through the federal government. So when you look at the drop in poverty rates in children, it’s because of the CCB at the federal level to a very large extent. I think that needs to be said.
CERB, during the pandemic, was a targeted basic income program for people who lost income and work. Research showed that when they received CERB, many of those people used that time and money - because they were being paid to stay home, if you recall - to increase their skill level. A very large number of those people exited the CERB program and were able to secure better jobs as a result of it.
These are the sorts of things that have been done by the federal government and have supported workers. I think when we talk about a basic income - and there’s been a little bit of discussion around this today - the devil really is in the details. That’s why it’s so important that, if Nova Scotia wants to explore this issue, they need to explore it in co-operation with the federal government. That’s what the P.E.I. province - with the assumption that a basic income would be implemented in co-operation with the federal government. That is exactly what the P.E.I. government is trying to do: engage the federal government to implement the basic income as they’ve defined it, to study the impacts, and to modify it. One of the really interesting things about the research that they’re proposing is that they would look at the administration of that program and modify it to make it better as they went along.
That’s why I think Nova Scotia raising its voice to support the P.E.I. project would be important, especially at this time, as you said. There have been some comments that this is not something that the federal government is interested in doing with the provincial governments. If provinces demand it, it can take place. It can’t be done by provinces alone. Absolutely it can’t be done by provinces alone. They’re struggling to try to deal with an issue that is broader than just a provincial budget can deal with. I just wanted to bring that forward.
There was a comment made that the middle class would pay for it. Well, that is a political decision, isn’t it? I mean, if you change the taxation system to make the middle class pay for it, the middle class will pay for it, but if you change the taxation system in ways that make the people who can pay pay more - and unfortunately, I’ve seen the opposite happening recently, in terms of taxation - then the principle that should be embraced in any definition and any delineation of a basic income program - that no one would be worse off because of the basic income - could be ensured.
I think that I will stop with those comments. I wanted to just note that, as I mentioned in my presentation, quite a number of municipalities have passed resolutions in support of a basic income. The first one was the Halifax Regional Municipality, but the Municipality of the County of Cumberland has passed a resolution in support, and the Town of Amherst has passed a resolution in support. Around this table - your constituents are calling for your help in making their lives more affordable. I think it’s really incumbent upon you to consider a basic income very carefully and think about how that might help your constituents in this province.
Thank you very much for having us. Pierre, did you have any further - do you mind if I ask . . .
THE CHAIR: Mr. Stevens.
PIERRE STEVENS: I just wanted to add something that worried me a bit about listening to the conversation. There’s a lot of talk about fiscal responsibility, but I haven’t heard anything about what the cost is to the individual who lives in poverty. A hundred people per day die prematurely in Canada because they live in poverty - a hundred people a day. Their lifespan gets cut by 10 to 15 years because they live in poverty, and we don’t even mention that as a cost? Where is our fiscal responsibility?
Dennis Raphael has written extensively about this: over 300 articles and many books. He calls the income assistance programs that we have in Canada - he calls that social murder. That’s just my comment.
THE CHAIR: I want to give an opportunity to Deputy Minister Beaton to make closing comments.
CRAIG BEATON: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I’d be remiss if I didn’t just make a comment about our team. I know we talked a little bit about some of the work that we’ve done as a department. Frazer and I get to be here today to talk about some of those highlights. As I said, we can always do more, and we reflect and we look at that as a department, but we have 1,700 people who work at the Department of OSD in every corner of this province. They’re meeting with people directly, some of whom are in the most difficult situations of their lives, and they do it with empathy, and they do it with compassion. They use the tools that they have in their tool box to be able to bring opportunities forward to help lift them where and when they can.
We didn’t get to highlight a lot of success stories here today, just based on the time, but I can tell you that the work of the department is quite remarkable. I’ve been there for 18 months, and every day I’m inspired by the work that these people do on the front lines. I think we’re here talking about models for delivery and how there are failures in certain areas and how potentially some might be perceived as better, but under the current system that we have, the people who work at OSD are day in and day out trying to support individuals on the front lines. I just wanted to make sure I said a huge thank you from my perspective on that. I’m sure it’s meaningful and purposeful work that they do every single day.
THE CHAIR: I think I can speak for the table in extending thank you to all those particularly on the front lines. Certainly a thank you to our witnesses here today. Normally, we might take a recess, but we are approaching the magic hour and there are a few items that we have to deal with quickly. I will excuse our witnesses as we move on quickly. Being mindful of the time, there are a number of pieces of correspondence, notably that Associate Deputy Minister Nicole Johnson-Morrison did respond to the requests for information. Is there any further discussion on those materials? If not, moving on.
There were a number of letters as well that are listed in the agenda that were received from various organizations and agencies on the topic of today’s discussion. Is there any discussion relevant to those letters?
The next Community Services Committee meeting will be an agenda-setting meeting. As I understand, we are fresh out of our list of topics. We do ask parties to submit proposed topics by Monday, December 20th. I know some people will travel to be with family and friends over the holiday period. We would be scheduled to meet on Tuesday, January 6th. I was asked to raise whether we wish to move ahead with January 6th or whether there was any interest in delaying potentially to Thursday, January 8th. It seems we’re fine with January 6th.
We will rise to meet again on January 6th for an agenda-setting meeting. This meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 11:59 a.m.]
