Human Resources Committee on April 15th, 2008

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, do I still have a little time?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

You have a minute and a half.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

OK. So the...

Go ahead, Mr. Drummond.

[Drummond White]

Thank you very much.

I'm reading here from our own social policy principles. One of them is equality. One of them is equity. I'll read the statement on equity full out: “Individuals and families are to be treated equally if they are in like circumstances; social inequalities are considered just to the extent that they result in compensating benefits for the least advantaged person in society.”

The implication for us is basically not that some people are treated especially well, but that people are treated so that they can rise to the same level of equity as others.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

OK.

I am going to ask my second question quickly because I do not want to go over my time.

What kind of effort should the federal government put into housing? We all agree that it is a key element in the fight against poverty.

[Dr. Glenn Drover]

I can talk about that in relation to our proposals. There were two areas that we felt were important.

One was the development of a housing allowance. It's allocated as a direct transfer or a tax credit and would be a benefit to low-income women. Many other countries have done this, so it's nothing new. We've also experimented with it here. We have it to a small degree in Ontario, for example, but it's not comprehensively developed. It would balance the current system of subsidies, as we see it, because under the current system it's all tied to housing units, whereas the allowance is tied to the individual. It's a very different kind of focus, and it gives the individual a lot more choice in the housing market.

The other one is in relation to housing mortgages. This is a very sensitive area in light of what's happened in the last half a dozen months in the United States and elsewhere, but nevertheless there is potential here for the development of mortgages for low-income people. Again, Ontario, and I believe Quebec, is initiating some small programs in this area. But to use the Ontario example, at the moment the so-called affordable level is what they call the fifth quintile, which if you were to take the city of Ottawa as an example would mean you'd have to have an income of $71,000. We're clearly not talking about low-income people when the Ontario program is operated. Even in Ontario it's $23 million; it's less than 3% of their total affordable housing program.

The affordable housing program in this country, as you know, is very meagre. Each of these examples, both the allowance and mortgage support for low-income people, is possible, but it's done on a very minimal scale in Canada at the moment.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Mr. White, you will probably have the opportunity to finish that answer when Mr. Martin from the NDP asks you questions.

You have seven minutes, Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much for taking the time to make your presentations this morning.

As you know, we're grappling with the federal responsibility where poverty in the country is concerned. I don't think we need to look much at whether there is poverty and what it looks like; I think we have a pretty good idea that it's there. As Mr. Shillington said, we have spent a number of years trying to define poverty and not really getting to actually dealing with poverty. In fact he makes a very good case that perhaps the exercise was trying to define poverty out of existence as opposed to actually doing something about it.

Katherine, you talked about local approaches to unique challenges in different areas in the country.

Glenn and Drummond and the Canadian Association of Social Workers talked about the fact that poor children, whom I think we've latched on to in a fairly dramatic way in the country, are always attached to poor families, and in most instances it's a poor mother trying to look after that child.

Richard, you talked about social exclusion. You had an experience at St. Christopher House in Toronto, where you actually came in contact directly with folks who are living in poverty and heard from them. And I think you did a wonderful piece in the Toronto Star at one point.

You also referenced a poem, which was first published by ISARC in Ontario, called Poverty Is. It's actually on my website, if you want to go there and check it out. It is a wonderful description of the day-to-day challenges of children as they grapple with the issue of poverty.

As quickly as you possibly can, what should the federal role be, in your view?

We can start with Katherine, and we'll work our way across.

[Katherine Scott]

I'll come back to the argument I was making in my short presentation. While I think local poverty reduction initiatives that are sparking across the country are critical to address the specificities of different communities—and I think poverty does look very different in different communities—it's critical to have a foundation. The federal government has a very important role in creating an equitable income security foundation for Canadians across the country, regardless of where they live. It has wholly and adequately a principal role in creating income security programs targeting different populations to provide adequate and equitable levels of support. I think it also has an important role to play in, obviously, social transfers to direct services at the local and municipal levels. I think as well it has an important role to play in the immigration system, and it has an important role to play in housing.

The federal government has moved back from housing, and I don't think it's an accident or a mistake that when we started to see poverty rising in the 1990s and income inequality emerging, it was at the same time that we saw a significant reduction in federal and provincial moneys in social housing and housing programs, just at the time when private market housing was taking off. Affordable housing remains a critical problem in Canada, and certainly in our large urban areas it is significantly a factor contributing to persistently high levels of poverty.

Interestingly, and I leave this as well as another area to consider, colleagues of mine in Calgary pointed out that they're doing a study of looking at.... There are different types of poverty. In England, for instance, they measure poverty rates based on housing poverty. They also talk about fuel poverty. In many United States communities and in Calgary, they're starting to look at transportation poverty, where people actually can no longer afford to live in areas adjacent to places of employment and are spending upwards of 30% of their income on transportation in order to get to employment. This is an emerging phenomenon that has everything to do with the pattern of suburbanization and economic development at this point in time.

So I think the idea that we are now seeing the emergence, certainly among the working poor, of transportation poor, is important and it speaks to what the role is of the federal government in investing in public transportation infrastructure that facilitates more equitable communities. I think it's important that we think about that. I think the federal government certainly would have a role to play in that regard as well.

[Dr. Glenn Drover]

I'm not going to repeat what Katherine said, but I wanted to highlight a couple of things that I think are important, to be brief about the distinction.

One, I think, is that there has to be respect for the division of responsibilities between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. That means, for me at least and I think for us generally, that we see various types of income transfers as largely the responsibility of the federal government. It has the resources to do that across the country. It can create equity across the country by doing that in a way the provinces can't. Historically, to some extent, it's been accepted.

Services and programs should be and are the responsibilities of the provincial and territorial governments and they should remain there.That's why, for example, in terms of our housing proposals, if you understood them, what we were saying is that both the allowance and the mortgage benefits are essentially income transfers of one sort or another, and we saw that as a federal responsibility, not a provincial responsibility. In the housing sector there are lots of initiatives. Most initiatives are really provincial responsibilities in relation to housing, but there can be income transfers in the housing sector that clearly pertain, at least, to the federal government.

The other thing I would say around the poverty measures is that I think there is an advantage in the federal government's developing a composite poverty measure. I would say that there's an advantage politically, because one of the results of the experiences in Europe is that in developing these composite measures they more and more engage the public in defining these things. In fact, once you're just focused on income, people tend to yawn or take a disinterest and say, “I have that level of income and I can get by, so the other person can't get by with $10,000 or $7,000 or whatever.” But when you start asking people themselves and engaging people in that exercise, it begins to change political attitudes about poverty. That was a significant development, a side effect so to speak, of the development of policy measures in Europe. I think it would be a side effect here as well. And I think that is a federal responsibility because again it's national in scope.

The final thing I would say is in relation to demonstration projects. There are still lots of things that are best practices, based upon other countries and what has been done in other countries, where the federal government could take the lead.

[Drummond White]

I think in addition to the specifics that my friend illustrated, it's important that the federal government and the federal Parliament take leadership in engaging the Canadian people in this discussion about what it means to be Canadian and what the aspects of social programs and social well-being are. That kind of debate and that kind of dialogue are essential for all of us in our country. As well, of course, just as in so many other areas where there is an overlapping of responsibilities, I'd suggest that it's also a responsibility of the federal government to take leadership to develop the programs, to develop the dialogue, and develop the research.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Thank you.

Now we move to Mr. Lake, from the Conservative Party, for his questions.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'd like to start by thanking you all for being here today.

This is obviously a really important study for us. I often say that regardless of the party stripe, we all want to see poverty decrease in this country. We may have some different ideas on how to get there, and we're hoping that we'll be able to get some new ideas from you in terms of this.

I want to clarify a couple of things. Katherine, I think when you were answering a question from Mr. Martin you referred to poverty rising in the 1990s. Everything I've read right now says that poverty is decreasing and has been decreasing for some time in Canada.

Can you clarify the measures you were talking about?

[Katherine Scott]

Well, poverty did rise through the early nineties, and around 1997, depending on the measure, it started to come down. But the increase in the early mid-nineties was not only directly related to the business cycle, it was also driven by rising housing costs and other expenses.

Poverty has basically been trending down from 1997. It's basically been static. If we're using the after-tax cycle, it's basically been sliding sideways around the 11% mark for the last four years or so.

Income inequality has continued to grow, so the gap between the rich and the poor, as measured, actually has grown. That's a trend that's evident in many advanced industrialized countries in Europe, and in the United States it's even more pronounced. You see income concentrating in the hands of upper-income Canadians.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

That segues nicely into my next question for you.

We heard a witness last Thursday who talked about purchasing power. There's been a lot of talk and comparison regarding what's happening in Europe and what's happened in the States. The witness we heard last Thursday--I think it was someone from Stats Canada, or they might have been from HRSDC--was talking about purchasing power.

When measuring purchasing power in the U.S. or Canada versus in the European countries, a lot of people point to the Nordic countries particularly. When you point specifically at the tenth percentile--the place where 10% of the population is poorer and 90% is richer, a relatively low-income percentile--our purchasing power here in Canada is actually higher than in the European countries. Purchasing power in the States is actually higher than in those Nordic countries that so many people point to.

Can you comment on your research on that, what you would know about that?

[Katherine Scott]

There have been some international studies looking at the relative well-being of--you're right--low-income people in the United States versus low-income people in Canada and Europe. Often, though, it's not only a question of purchasing power, but also of what kind of access low-income people in those countries have to public goods, which are services and benefits that aren't captured in income statistics. Certainly from the research with which I'm familiar about the U.S. and Canada, low-income Canadians are in a relatively better position than low-income Americans, given the comparative nature of our welfare state and access to public goods, particularly access to public health care. I think that's correct.

How you take account of that really then becomes a methodological question, how you take account of access to public goods, resources, in your calculation of poverty measurement. Many methodologies have been devised for that.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Right, and I think that's part of the challenge. As I look at some of the key words as we go through this, I think, in terms of my responsibility as a member of Parliament, stewardship is definitely right up there, and balance, and considering consequences--sometimes unintended consequences.

I look at the study by John Richards, who is a former NDP MLA in Saskatchewan who did a study on poverty--

[Katherine Scott]

Many years ago, yes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes, many years ago. You're right.

But he did a study on poverty. I referred to some of the things he talked about--the changes to the EI program and some provincial changes to welfare, which he said contributed to an increase in employment and a decrease in poverty.

But one of the points he makes as well is about people who are not “employable”, and how--I don't want to put words in his mouth--sometimes when we put too much focus on helping people who are employable, thinking that we're doing the right thing, perhaps we don't have the resources left to help the people who are truly not employable, the people who need the help the most.

I've heard a lot of talk from all of the witnesses today in that area, how there are certain groups of people who need specific help. I'd like your comment on that, in terms of that balance and how we manage those public dollars.

[Katherine Scott]

I'll leave the critique of John Richards' piece to Richard.

The point you're making about the deserving and the undeserving poor is a long-standing theme certainly in Canadian or other Anglo countries. It's a long tradition dating back to the 16th century.

I agree with you, and this speaks to what Richard was saying, that we do tend to have very value-laden approaches to anti-poverty programming. Certainly the emphasis on labour market participation that's been evident in Canada and elsewhere since the late 1980s, I would argue, has tended to push, for instance, the design of the national child tax benefit. One of its explicit goals was to mobilize the labour market participation of parents. That is directly stated in the legislation. As a consequence, the characterization of people who are unable to participate in the labour market...I agree you can have consequences. That particular group of people with their needs can be overlooked or denigrated.

One of the things I would argue about this rigid idea that you're in the labour market or you're out of the labour market, you're a participating Canadian or you're a non-participating Canadian; you're a taxpayer or you're sludge, is that this kind of division is very unhelpful. For instance, when you look at someone in the disability community, they would tell you they are happy and want to actively participate in employment and in community life. They may not be able to be full-time members of the labour market, given the chronic nature of their disability, but we have rigid income security programs that make people have to fit square pegs into round holes. You're either all in or you're all out. Many of the programs, certainly in the social assistance design, force people into those boxes, and that's not helpful.

As for your global question about whether we have an envelope of money, and that the more we focused on making employables the less we focused on other groups that don't have the same potential for labour market participation, I see that a bit differently. I think groups have their own needs and we have to think about it differently, and it shouldn't be constructed as a zero-sum game. We need a range of supports to create a foundation and a base that addresses those needs.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'll give you an example of something I consider a lose-lose. I have several foster brothers. I have two foster brothers in Alberta—I'm not going to name them—who are on what's called AISH, assured income for the severely handicapped. In my view, both of those foster brothers are employable. I've had several conversations with them. They've gone through some pretty tough circumstances that they may need help with, but surely they're not severely handicapped to the point where they don't need to be working.

In both cases they live in basement apartments and their lives are pretty much consumed right now by surfing the Internet, playing video games, and things like that. They're in their twenties. I would make the argument that in both cases their lives could be a lot better than that. When I've had discussions with them, they contend that if they were to get a job they would lose their AISH, and that's their concern.

Without going too much into provincial politics, I would also make the argument that the money they receive, while it's not that significant an amount of money--I think they could be making significantly more money if they were working, especially in the Alberta environment right now--could probably be better spent on people who really, truly need the money. So I look at that as a lose-lose, in a sense.

You've got the unintended consequences of trying to help these two individuals who really are probably worse off because of the help they're receiving, I think, and at the same time that money is not being spent in another area where perhaps it might be able to help people who truly cannot help themselves. And that's a concern I have.

[Katherine Scott]

Well, sure. And I think it would be interesting to hear Richard on this.

I'm sorry. Pardon me.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Please excuse the interruption, Ms. Scott.

Mr. Lake, you have gone considerably over your time.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But we can hear an answer, no?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

The next time they speak, our witnesses can perhaps answer your questions at the same time.

In the next round, each party has five minutes.

Your turn, Mr. Murphy.