Finance Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Monsieur Mai, vous disposez de cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start by talking to my colleague across the way. I was very disappointed that we started with questions regarding a carbon tax when you know full well that you're making up this stuff and when the NDP is supporting cap and trade. We know it's different. It's one thing to make up stuff, but to involve witnesses and to take their time when they have issues.... They come here to talk about issues, and when you make up stuff, it's really disappointing.

My question is for Canada Without Poverty.

You say that Canada has previously made some commitments or that it came out saying that we would end child poverty by 2000. We have a lot of studies that say poverty costs Canada close to $24 billion, or something like that. How would you grade the government's action in terms of fighting poverty for the past 10 years, let's say, or even more?

[Leilani Farha]

Thank you for the question.

We have a persistent and stubborn poverty problem in this country. It has been going on for more than a decade. We know that there are up to 4.5 million people in this country—that's all the people in the Maritimes, times two—who are poor. We know that every month in this country 900,000 people use food banks to make ends meet. We know that there are at least 250,000 homeless people in this country, so let me ask you: what is Canada's record on poverty, homelessness, and hunger?

I would say that the only answer we can give at this point is a failing grade, and not because poverty, homelessness, and hunger are worse here than in Zimbabwe or Somalia, but because we are—and we just heard it from the Governor of the Bank of Canada—a wealthy, rich, and stable economy. We have the means and the money to make these social issues disappear.

Not only do we have the means, we have the legal obligation—not just the moral obligation but the legal obligation—to do so. Why? Because we've signed and ratified international human rights treaties that are clear, treaties that clearly say we have an obligation to ensure the most disadvantaged people in this country have adequate housing, an adequate standard of living, and adequate food.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gaudreau, you've spoken of the fact that we are seeing new faces. In my riding, Brossard—La Prairie, some people who work, who have a job, are using food banks. I repeat it often: users' faces have changed.

Organizations have also had to reduce their services. Could you tell us more about the funds that were promised to these organizations, and the delays affecting the payment of those funds? In your statement, you mentioned that there were also delays in approving those organizations' subsidy requests. How significant are these delays, and what are the consequences for both those organizations and for the public?

[Pierre Gaudreau]

The first thing to say is that the federal program, the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, remains useful and relevant. This is a good source of funding, but, in fact, there are problems. The government promised to cut down on red tape, but the management of this program has not improved. The program is now approximately 15 years old. There have been delays from the start, and those delays have increased. To illustrate the consequences of these delays, let's discuss the organization that presented, a year and a half ago, an offer to purchase a rooming house and which asked for bids to renovate it. The offer is no longer valid, obviously, nor are the bids, because of inflation. Funds that should have been available are no longer there.

These delays reduce the efficiency of government investments. Organizations have nearly lost very good projects to help street youth. Shelters wish to add on to their facilities, but they can't do it, because they can't spend the money as long as there is no departmental signature. There was also an unfortunate case, that of the organization for which I work, the Réseau d'aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal. The organization did not receive departmental approval for its project, which had been endorsed by the community, by the City of Montreal, by the federal government, and even by a federal-provincial committee.

The fact remains that the nature of the program is sound, and that it must continue. However, red tape must be reduced and the budget must be increased to help, as you said, those new faces, those who are about to become homeless. They need help to remain stable, by providing them with housing. They need to be helped through the process when, at 40, 50 or 60 years old, they have to face new problems. Furthermore, those faces have become more diverse. In Quebec, an increase in the age of the homeless population has become quite noticeable. The need exists to maintain this program and to improve it, so that there are no delays and so that there is more action.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

We'll go to Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the guests, but I will focus my questions and my intervention on Mr. Demers.

Of course, I think that there's probably not anyone in this room who hasn't been touched by cancer. Certainly moving forward in the many important areas that you've indicated is a priority. I have a health care background, and I think I've seen a lot of programs come and go. I've seen a lot of money spent, and I think there's a pretty good awareness of what we actually need to do in terms of prevention. The implications of chronic disease are such that if you look at any hospital, you'll see that nowadays probably 70% or 80% of their budget is spent on dealing with issues around chronic disease.

Maybe I'll give you time to articulate your brief more clearly. You talked about three areas, but you didn't talk specifically about what you'd like to do and how much money you think it would cost. I'll give you time to articulate a lot more clearly the prevention agenda and making prevention a priority.

We've talked about research capacity and the integration of research into policy and programming, which seems to have some real challenges, and then putting policy into practice, partnering with charities, and government leadership. Can you spend some time exploring all these ideas?

[Daniel Demers]

Thank you.

Yes, indeed, I think everybody in this room knows that 40% of people will have cancer in their lifetime. Most of us have family members on whom it has had a major impact. It is a huge issue for our country. Particularly within the issue of an aging society, if we want to ensure that people have an opportunity to contribute, then preventing them from getting chronic diseases is important public policy.

As far as the three aspects go—the investment and research, the transfer of that research into policy and practice, and then its impact on individuals—this is an area in which there has been some investment, though not nearly as great as that into the treating of diseases or the management of chronic illnesses, so we look at it as a real opportunity for Canada, particularly with an aging society, to say, “How can we invest in understanding what changes individual behaviour? What can be done to actually prevent diseases from occurring in the first place?”

We all know that we should be eating healthily, but what stops us? Why don't we eat healthily? Why is it that our children are eating so much and maybe not exercising? What is it in our infrastructure programs? What is it in our school systems? What are those things that are preventing us from doing the right thing?

We looked and saw that there wasn't actually that much research done into the actual practices that public policy could then take up and individuals could then use to empower themselves to make individual change. We think much more research needs to be done, not only into the hard sciences of prevention—for example, on how a certain chemical affects the biochemistry of the individual—but much more so into the sociological sides of research. What actually causes someone to change the actions they take? If that research is done, it's great, but what if it doesn't get translated? What if it doesn't make it into public policy?

We not only have to do the research but also have the commitment of governments to say that prevention is important, that we are going to learn, and that we are going to apply best practices from other jurisdictions.

I mentioned, for example, that in the United States the corporate sector has taken a tremendous leadership role in the provision of prevention at the workplace. That involves organized labour, it involves CEOs, it involves companies, and it involves government. We have to do the research to know what we should do. We have to translate it into policies and practice in governments and organizations such as business, but then we have to go to the next step, and that's working with charities.

We have tremendous reach into communities. We have a lot of people who come to us and say, “I want to do the right thing, but I just don't know what to do” or “If I'm going to do it, and push comes to shove, and it's Saturday night, and I don't know what I'm going to eat, I'm going to eat the easiest thing for me.” How do we get the information out to those individuals so that they make informed, intelligent choices? How do we empower them with the research that governments can support, that organizations such as charities can help get out to people, and that we can then measure the impact of at the community level?

We think there's a lot of room as far as an overall approach on prevention goes. There's actually a lot of ground to be gained.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'm always concerned that we don't use research from other countries and apply it. We duplicate and reduplicate. Are there any outstanding countries that are doing work in this area?

[Daniel Demers]

Certainly in some very specific areas of prevention, such as prevention against UV radiation, Australia's the leader. There are certain countries.

As an example, in New York City they're taking a lot of leadership in looking at healthy diets and nutritional labelling. We think there are best practices. I think when the government signed the UN declaration, it was a commitment to learn from other countries and to bring those lessons and apply them here.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. McLeod.

We'll go to Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I want to thank our guests for being here today.

Ms. McLachlan—I know I didn't pronounce that correctly. Am I close?

[Harriett McLachlan]

Yes.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It's a miracle.

When the campaign to end child poverty by 2000 first started, I chaired the first meeting in Hamilton. Sometimes it seems like 100 years ago now, given the way I feel. Fraser Mustard wrote something very similar to what you said earlier about how by investing a dollar in a child's early development, you save nine. I thought he said seven, but I'm certainly not going to quibble. It's there.

As you sit here observing the committee functions, I have to ask you a question. How do you feel coming before a parliamentary committee, expecting to offer the best advice that you have to all of us, only to have some government members putting forward their spin about a carbon tax?

[Harriett McLachlan]

I think it's a waste of our time, if that's the question. We're here and we've displaced ourselves and we've travelled a long distance to be here—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's exactly my point. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it's exactly my point. The point's been made. There's no need for us to go into it, but the reality is that each and every one of you has given up your time, and this is a significant and important chance for you, and time was used up for that. I think that's reprehensible, actually.

I want to ask you a question. Either one of you is free to answer. How have the corporate tax breaks in Canada benefited people who live in poverty?

[Harriett McLachlan]

That's a very interesting question.

It's very evident to me that it actually does not help people in poverty. It helps people who are working in corporations. If the answer to not being in poverty is a job, then those who work in corporations benefit. It's interesting because poverty is a complex thing. Very often people think, well, you just need a job. There are a lot of people who are poor who have jobs. I've worked as a professional social worker for a long time, and I've lived 35 years in poverty. A job is not the solution.

I would propose to you that a comprehensive federal plan is what we need, because if we tweak here and tweak there, it's piecework and it doesn't work. We know that it doesn't work because that's the system we have today. We need all levels of government, federal and provincial. We need all sectors. We need business sectors and civil society. We need to bring ourselves together to work collaboratively on this to end poverty in Canada, period.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I agree with you.

In the eighties and into the early nineties in Hamilton, we lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. We had to bridge people to whatever jobs there were. They couldn't just get them. They had to be retrained and have a number of things.

I'll move now to RSIQ. Hamilton industry is what I wanted to talk about.

It's about the homeless situation in the U.S. today. I just saw a report recently on television; people are lining up their cars at parking lots to be able to sleep in their car in a parking lot to be safe, and the parking lots have a waiting list. That's how bad it's getting. Allow that to sink in for a second. You can no longer just park your car. It's that bad.

We've heard warnings from a variety of people of how many Canadians working today are practically addicted to their credit cards and lines of credit. The banking community has given to Canadians, as a whole, credit way beyond their means. I'm not about to assign blame to that, but at the macro level, we have to do something to get an investment occurring in this country.

We heard during pre-budget consultations last year that $500 billion in corporate money is sitting stagnant right now. We need to get that money into action.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Would you have any thoughts on that?

[Pierre Gaudreau]

The issue you raise with regard to the increase in homelessness in the United States is entirely relevant. It's been observed in Quebec, as well as in Canada. We're talking about an increase of shelter bed nights. However, these are not bed nights at the Château Laurier or at Château Frontenac. The people involved have no choice but to sleep in those shelters. You also mentioned people sleeping in their cars. That happens here as well. Obviously, since we are in Canada, it's cold, but people take the risk of sleeping outdoors, or of squatting in abandoned houses.

As for using existing financial resources, an increase in the prosperity gap has been noted. There is wealth in Canada — in fact, the country's overall economic situation is not bad — but the problem lies in the redistribution of that wealth.

We are among those who ask all governments, within the context of their budgetary activities — indeed, that falls within the mandate of the committee's work — to reduce tax measures that benefit corporations and high-income individuals. Recently, in Quebec, debates were held on this matter. Quebec's government threatened to further tax high-income taxpayers, but that caused a huge outcry.

However, if we wish to see fewer people in the streets, we must take action through taxation, the source we all hold in common.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[Pierre Gaudreau]

For decades, a decrease in the use of taxation as a tool to redistribute wealth has been observed. But to fight both poverty and homelessness, we have to turn to that again.