Human Resources Committee on May 12th, 2009

[Johanne Perron]

The reality is that many women are in the labour market but do not have access to formal childcare services. It is often a neighbour, an aunt or an uncle who offers the service.

I can speak of my own personal experience when I was in school. There were hardly any spaces for infants. Five different people came to mind my baby in my home, because something always came up: they would find a better job or they would hurt their back, etc. All of these problems made the situation very difficult.

Both things must go hand in hand. Both are necessary. There must be pay equity in order for jobs to pay women enough in order for them to have true financial independence. Child care services that truly fill the needs of parents and allow them to participate in the labour market without constantly worrying about what might be happening with their children are also necessary.

Employers under-estimate the cost of pay inequity. In areas such as daycare services or social services, where visiting homemakers offer in-home services to the elderly, for example, there is quite a high turnover rate. There are frequent staff changes when salaries are not high enough. If employers were to think a little bit more about the costs involved in constantly training new staff...

There also must be government involvement in order for high enough wages to be offered in certain sectors and services, such as childcare.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

You consider that, in our study on reducing poverty, we should at the same time be giving priority to the issue of establishing childcare spaces and pay equity under the framework of non-negotiable pay equity legislation.

Among the measures you have outlined, and that are measures that we could tackle at the outset, to which measure should we give priority if our aim is to break the poverty cycle and have a positive impact? You talked about housing and early childhood centres.

[Auréa Cormier]

The six or seven points I mentioned are all important. I am trying to advocate for those people who are the poorest, who are at the buttom of the ladder.

I view the minimum wage issue as very important. I know that the federal government has no authority to legislate in this area provincially, but it could set an example. That might be an incentive.

If, in all those areas that are under federal jurisdiction, you had the courage to legislate with regard to minimum wage, that would have a domino effect. This is extremely important.

Then, there are the people who are in a difficult situation, especially here in New Brunswick, and receive employment insurance benefits. We have a lot of seasonal work and there have been numerous lay-offs, especially in the forestry industry. Given the present situation, if nothing changes, these people will have to rely on social assistance, and our rates are the worst in Canada — $294 per month for an employable person. Those would be my priorities.

The next issue would be housing, because it eats up a good portion of people's income. There should be many more federal and provincial programs transferring major funding for coop housing, housing run by non-profit groups, in particular.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Has any housing been built over the last few years in New Brunswick? What types of housing are there, mainly?

[Auréa Cormier]

There have been several types, for example coop housing. As a matter of fact, a few buildings opened up very recently. Private non-profit corporations are also looking into this.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Martin.

Sir, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses today for being here, for the work you do, and for sharing with us some of your thoughts. Certainly we've heard a number of very excellent suggestions here as to how we might lift people, starting with pay equity and national child care, and including housing and seniors. The list goes on and on. It's consistent with what we hear in other jurisdictions.

We just don't seem to be able to get to a place in Canada these days, though, where we actually have the political will, as has been suggested, to get even one of these done, never mind all of them. We saw in the most recent budget the taking away of the ability of women to go after pay equity. The removal of that was a regressive step, I believe.

It just indicates to you, though, the political wind that is blowing at the moment and that we need to get a handle on somehow. Of course, the response all the time is that “we can't afford to do that”. We can afford to give, minimally, $250 billion in tax relief to corporations and individuals who make very good money, but we can't afford even a percentage of that to deal with some of these issues that you've brought before us.

What we're trying to do in some part with this committee, and with some of the work we're doing around it, is change the wind and create the political atmosphere within which some of this can and will be done. I know that around this table we have some very good politicians who, by way of their participation and interaction in the discussions we've had so far, are indicating that they're certainly listening and who want to see if we can't come to a place where something can in fact be done.

I enjoyed some of your quotes, Steve. I often quote Martin Luther King. When he got the civil rights bill passed in the States, he then wanted the right for black people to vote, but he was told that he had spent all of his political capital on the civil rights piece and would have to wait a long time for the next piece. He decided that he wasn't willing to wait.

He went out into the public square in Washington and saw a lot of people walking around with their fingers in the air. They were politicians trying to figure out which way the wind was blowing in order to determine how they would vote on any given piece of legislation.

He then determined that there were really probably three kinds of politicians, although we don't all fit into one easy category. There are politicians who will always do the right thing, politicians who, when given the proper argument, when you sit down and talk with them, will see the right thing to do. Then there is that larger group of politicians who are walking around with their fingers in the air. King determined that the best thing he could do would be to “change the wind”, because then you get all of them. He started his movement. We know they're all history now.

How do we do that in Canada? I guess that's my question. How do we change the wind?

Are you connected? Churches across the country, particularly the United Church, have at their core a social justice mandate to lift people out of their own self-interest so that they can see the larger picture. there are anti-poverty groups and social justice groups.

Do you connect with people across the country and with women's groups? I know that the child care people do. I was at a wonderful gathering in Winnipeg a few years ago where they all gathered to join their energy and almost got a national child care program. That kind of fell by the wayside, but it's still there as a marker.

What do we do to change the wind?

[Steve Berubé]

One of the first things is to move the question from “who has their finger up in the air?” to the reality for some of our western friends who have seen the wind. It's really quite a nebulous sort of thing, isn't it?

Really, part of what has happened is that with 17-second responses to questions, you can't really develop any kind of momentum towards moving the country forward in terms of dealing with these issues. It has to be a much more sustained and prolonged conversation.

Also, the spin cycle has really killed political discourse within this nation. That is hugely unfortunate.

In part, it's your responsibility to start to shift the wind, where people visualize the wind. It's only when we're presented with strong moral arguments that people will begin to change their perspective from one of their own self-interest to one of national interest. We've seen that time and time again throughout history.

That's why I went back to quotes from people like FDR, Churchill, Johnson, and Kennedy. Even in Canada, we talk about a “just society” still; at least in eastern Canada, we talk about a just society. I know they talk about a national energy program out west and that's how that particular individual is remembered.

But I think it's up to you folks. You are the leaders of our nation. Unless you shift the political discourse.... We can do what we can on the ground and in conversation with individuals and with groups, but really, the responsibility lies at your feet.

[Auréa Cormier]

I believe that politicians are elected to manage the common good, but what is sad is that it's not what they're always doing. As activists, we spend so much energy trying to convince the people, because we know they will move only if the people are in agreement with some of the suggestions we're making.

In a way, it's not normal for citizens like us to be spending all of our energy trying to move public opinion toward what really represents the common good. Unless that happens, I think, nothing will change, unless the population, or at least a good portion of the population, backs this shift toward reducing poverty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Tony.

We're now going to move to the last questioner of this first round.

Mr. Komarnicki, sir, you have seven minutes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

There's no question about it: there's a lot of hot air in Ottawa, that's for sure, and there are many politicians blowing in the wind, so to speak.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

But the reality is that we all have a common interest, and I think it's fair to say that the objective is to help those who most need help, the most vulnerable.

When I hear you advocating, I agree there's room for improvement, regardless of your political stripe, but the question is, how do you tackle it? Where do you put your resources and funds? You try to balance the various interests and that's not always as easy as it seems.

You can say that we can tax and spend, and I know my learned colleague Mr. Savage was sort of tending towards that direction. His leader said that we will have to raise taxes. I have some issue with that, because I think it's more to do with spending priorities. For those who pay taxes, the idea of more tax is not too palatable.

But I think there's one thing we ought not to do--and I know it happened under the Liberal Martin government--and that is to cut $25-billion worth of transfers to the provinces in the Canada social transfer. What that does is balance the federal books. Anybody can balance the books by cutting spending or increasing taxes, but you have to be careful what you do. When transfers to the provinces were cut, I think the most vulnerable took the hit, not those who are “haves”.

My view is that we need to preserve the Canada social transfer increases and I know we have. For instance, the Canada social transfer is rising from $2.4 billion to $3.2 billion in 2008-09 and increasing thereafter. Some of the challenges when you transfer funds over to the provinces are in what they do with it. We've received some comments about the fact that perhaps there should be more conditions put on the transfers in order to direct where that money goes. I'll want to hear from you with respect to whether that is something we should do.

The other statement that Mr. Berubé made was with respect to the budget being a moral statement. I think there's some truth to that, so I've just kind of reviewed what we've done over the last little while. We have $2 billion that we've allocated towards housing and renovating existing social housing. It included $400 million for the seniors and $75 million for the disabled. I think that's pretty good.

I looked at our employment insurance. My colleague was talking about a cost of $400 million or $500 million, but what we have done on unemployment insurance--or employment insurance, whatever you want to call it--is inject $4.5 billion into the economy through (a) not increasing premiums, with benefits increasing, and (b) by doing something very specific.

For example, we increased the amount you can get in EI by five weeks. That cost $1.1 billion. Also, we have training for those who don't qualify for EI, for $500 million. For those who are long-tenured, there's another $500 million. There's also a work-sharing program for $200 million. If you add all those up, they're at about $3.4 billion.

You may say, “Well, you need to do more.” I can accept that. But these are targeted, I think, to those who are most vulnerable. When you look at our overall spending program, it's headed in that direction.

I know you would like to see the two-week waiting period done away with and a reduction in the number of hours to 360, which would mean working about two and a quarter months before you qualify. The question is, though, is that the best place to put your money or is there somewhere else? I look at what we're doing for students, for instance, in increasing significantly the amount of education. I think from a moral standpoint we've done some significant things in the budget. There's more work to do, and I'll accept that.

First, I want to hear about the Canada social transfer. Then, with respect to pay equity, I know that's also a subject of some significant debate.

I'd like to ask Ms. Perron, perhaps, about whether she feels there's any place there for the unions to play when they're negotiating contracts with respect to making sure it's addressed at that level. I know that the other alternative is to have it addressed at the court level, but that's litigious and it takes years. Secondly, you said that maybe we should do it by legislation. If that's true, what's the cost of that, and should it be done all at one time because it's a social justice issue, or should it be progressive?

I'll leave those two questions.

Perhaps Steve can start with the Canada social transfer and then we'll go to Ms. Perron on the other question.

[Steve Berubé]

First of all, you need to know that I believe in miracles. Therefore, I'm praying for a conversion away from supply-side economics. I don't expect that's going to happen.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's helpful if you're a pastor.

[Steve Berubé]

It is, isn't it?

One of the questions is, how do you eat an elephant? The answer, of course, is “one bite at a time”. You talk about the significant increases in a variety of areas. How much was taken out of the economy, out of the federal revenue income, by the two-point decrease in HST? I know that I really appreciate that whenever I go to Tim Hortons. It makes a huge difference for me: the cost of coffee is down from $1.75 to about $1.72.

That's part of the reality: we need to examine where it is that we're taking money out of, and not only out of the hands of the provinces with the changes to the CST, but also how we have effectively reduced not only taxes at the HST level, but also, if you look at what has happened in terms of business taxation, if you look at how flattening the tax brackets—

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

But my question was specific to the Canada social transfer and whether you think there should be conditions imposed on how that money is spent. Or should we just allow the transfers to go as they have in the past, in sort of a general way, without specific conditions as to where the money should be spent?

[Steve Berubé]

Oh, I heard your question.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm looking for an answer.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Or at least--

[Steve Berubé]

That's really a point to be negotiated with the provinces, isn't it? That's not within my bounds. What is within my bounds is to say as a citizen, “What is the priority is in terms of dealing with issues within this nation?” It's not how a program is executed between the federal and provincial governments. That's beyond my expertise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could we have a quick response, Ms. Perron, on the pay equity question?

[Johanne Perron]

Sure, but I still would like to say something about the transfers. I personally believe there should be some level of responsibility associated with the transfers. If they are meant to do something, there should be conditions to make sure that those things are happening. If there's money transferred for child care, for instance, I would like to see conditions, to make sure that we have the same level of standards across the country. This is not the coalition's standpoint, necessarily, because we don't really have to discuss these kinds of issues, but personally, I think it would be important.

Moving on to pay equity, I believe unions have a role to play in participating in pay equity programs. They shouldn't have an option to get out of working towards pay equity, pay equity being a human right. On the other hand, I think the ultimate responsibility falls on the shoulders of the employers.

Really, it would be false to pretend that employees and employers have the same level of power. Being an employee, I think that would be great from my point of view, but the reality is that employers have the final say on what pay is, so really, the employer should be responsible for pay equity. That's even more important because not everybody is unionized, so if you're looking at pay equity for the public and private sectors, you really need to ensure that employees who are not unionized have access to pay equity.

Again, I want to emphasize that pay equity is a human right. It's been recognized internationally for decades now.