Human Resources Committee on May 12th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to the second round, which will be five minutes.

I'm going to start with Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll resist the urge to respond to Ed's comments about the CST. We have our opportunity in the House of Commons to debate those things, which we do very calmly and rationally on occasion.

But I don't question his motivation in being serious about wanting to do something about poverty. I can't say that about all of his colleagues, or about all of my colleagues, for that matter, but this committee is trying to get some answers.

I'm intrigued and pleased by your continuing references to supply-side economics. I noted that one of its architects in the States, Jack Kemp, passed away recently. The Kemp-Roth bill of the 1970s led to Ronald Reagan and supply-side economics, the idea being that you sort of take government out of the way and let the rich do well, and then it will trickle down. That led not only to a collapse of social infrastructure but to huge deficits as well, which it was never supposed to do.

In fact, if you compare that model to the model of some of the Nordic countries or the more progressive countries that do invest in social infrastructure, they're doing well economically. They manage their budgets quite well and take care of their citizens in a way that we would probably do well to emulate.

On the EI piece, this graph from the Caledon Institute shows the percentage of men and women and then the overall average percentage of Canadians who are receiving employment insurance benefits. It's gone from a high of 83% in 1990 down to 43%. A lot of parties share the blame for that. The minister talks about 82%, which is a technically correct number, but it's a sort of manufactured, gerrymandered number which is meant to ignore the fact that so many people are systematically eliminated from qualifying for EI benefits.

My friend Dominic LeBlanc, who some of you would know, often talks about two people at the same plant who could be laid off together. One might live in Moncton and one might live somewhere else along the French Shore. One would qualify for benefits and one wouldn't. That basic inequity has to be fixed, so I think the 360-hour standard makes a lot of sense. Then you look at whether you do the two weeks or the five weeks or where you go on that.

I want to ask you something. Anybody who wants to can answer. A number of people are excluded from being full participants in the wealth of this nation. Two of the most notable groups are aboriginal Canadians and people with disabilities.

Last week, some of us had a chance to spend a day in a wheelchair for the Canadian Paraplegic Association. Tony and I did it, and perhaps some others here. It's an eye-opening experience and a tiny glimpse into what it's like. I wonder if any of you have thoughts or specific ideas for how we should have a social infrastructure that better protects, enhances, and provides opportunity of access to Canadians with disabilities.

[Auréa Cormier]

I'd like to comment on the disability question from the New Brunswick point of view. We have a lot of people who are severely handicapped, yet our province denies them that label. I don't know how this could be changed, but it's hurting tremendously people who are in dire need. I think we should address that at the provincial level. We've tried, and we're going through the poverty reduction plan trying to push for this.

I don't know if at the federal level you could sort of make it uniform as to what the criteria are to qualify a person as handicapped. New Brunswick should certainly be taken by the hand and led in this matter.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do you mean that they are by definition not considered to be persons with disabilities to qualify for--

[Auréa Cormier]

That's right. To be considered handicapped in New Brunswick, you have to be blind, deaf, mentally ill, or totally in a wheelchair. They're very, very strict. It's a three-person committee and there are no appeal processes. It really needs to be revamped.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm not sure if I have time, but in terms of the New Brunswick anti-poverty strategy, could somebody just give us a sense of where you think that is headed?

Nova Scotia recently came out with theirs, and I think it was a little bit rushed, to be honest with you. It was a bit of an afterthought, but at least they're trying to do something. Newfoundland and Labrador have done some wonderful stuff. Quebec has always had good social infrastructure. Ontario has produced a good report. I just wonder where you think we're headed in New Brunswick.

[Auréa Cormier]

It's been in effect since October 16. We've had hearings in 14 regions in New Brunswick. There's been a lot of public participation. I do have a few questions.

The people who will be deciding what the strategy is, really, are chosen by politicians, so that kind of puts limitations on the level of changes that can be made. I think the most serious concern I have is that our finance minister, with quite striking tax reductions, has seriously decreased the amount of money coming into the provincial coffers. So in the upcoming years, with no money or very little money coming in, I don't know what can be done in terms of a poverty reduction strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Lobb.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much.

We've heard a lot of similar ideas put forward throughout our study, both yesterday in Halifax and today in Moncton. What I want to do, if we could, is just take one step back. A lot of the suggestions do address our most vulnerable.

Last spring, I was in Moncton for some business. The company I worked for has an office here. I have been told that Moncton is a good news story as far as job creation in eastern Canada is concerned. I just wondered if you'd give this committee a little bit of a perspective on what has taken place in the last 10 years as far as what has changed in job creation is concerned, particularly around Moncton. That's understanding full well that a lot of the suggestions you put forward address our most vulnerable.

However, to make that next step up, I just wondered if you would indulge us in that. Any of you are free to start.

[Steve Berubé]

Part of what's transpired in the Greater Moncton Area consists of two things, really. Infrastructure was brought into place in terms of telecommunications and that really allowed this city and this region to move forward. It was predominantly driven by investments from the telecommunications companies that more or less had a monopoly at the time. There was Aliant in this area, and it was also really pushed by Frank McKenna, whom I'm sure many of you are aware of.

I'm not from this area, but as somebody who's lived in a variety of regions in this country where there has been a tremendous amount of poverty, what really impressed me most about Moncton is how people pull together, on an individual basis and as a community, to try to bring about positive change. It's visible not just in the economic climate, but also in terms of a lot of social infrastructure that's developed within the community. There is a strong network of people who've really worked hard and have been very committed to moving this community forward.

[Auréa Cormier]

I think that Moncton is a success story. You're quite right. When all of the activity around rail crumble, with CN and so forth, there was a planned effort, a group effort, to rebound. This has really made a difference. I also think that being a bilingual city and having a strong university has done a lot for Moncton. It really is something to consider.

I know that there are activities for creating jobs for women who are not well off. Just recently, for example, the group called Support To Single Parents, Nancy Hartling's group, is championing a program. I believe it's funded by the federal government. It's trying to introduce women in lower economic areas back to work and is a very well-planned project. So that's something positive.

I think Moncton should be banking on its cultural assets, because we have a lot of culture in this city, both Acadian and anglophone. I think we should look for ways to develop that aspect of the tourism economy.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I appreciate your comments. In a way, I look at Moncton as a model. Again, I don't want to lose the point here about our most vulnerable and the need for housing and support programs for them, but once that step is taken, to really take off and flourish in the workforce, as I witnessed here.... As you mentioned, bilingualism is a huge attraction for a corporation. There's no doubt about that. There was also the reference to then Premier McKenna and his commitment to the IT infrastructure, which is a huge component of that as well.

The one interesting thing, which rang a bell here when I looked at the comments you made about training and labour, is that we had trouble filling some of our high-tech positions. I think that lends itself very well to some of the programs we've put into our economic action plan around training people who are already in the workforce to upgrade their skills. Also, to really hit back at employment equity for both males and females, it's really an IT economy in Moncton, as I see it. That was what our business was. It was a software company and they're very gender-neutral on pay equity. On programmers, project managers, program managers, it's very equal; it's not labourer employment.

That's why I was very excited to be coming out to Moncton to hear about this, because I know there are a lot of good things. There are some very serious issues, but there are a lot of ways to see the glass as half full.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

We have one more questioner. We're going to finish up with Madam Beaudin.

You have five minutes, if you like.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You indicated your desire to develop an anti-poverty strategy here in New Brunswick. It however seems that the government does not wish to move in the direction that the interested stakeholders and decision-makers would like to see it take. You even said that the study committee was somewhat premature. This concerns me because I would like you, the partners on the ground, to be present and to advise the government.

In Quebec, following massive engagement on the part of civil society, partners and organizations, the government, in 2002, brought in framework legislation in order to combat poverty. Since then, we have had early childhood centres that charge $7 a day and family policies in more than 60 municipalities. Under these family policies, the partners meet with municipal and government officials to decide on their own policies within their municipality or community. We are working on measures relating to work-family balance. The minimum wage has just been increased to $9 an hour. We have a pay equity act.

We have proof that these measures produce results. Indeed, the poverty rate has decreased in Quebec. In this regard, I believe that what you have talked about might have a very concrete impact. However, I feel like telling you, as we have told your colleague, that it is much easier to give a kick in the pants to the player who is the closest to you. Without questioning the federal government's contribution, I believe there is a need to insist that the provincial government be present. It must also be stated that mobilization is essential. This fight must continue to be waged.

You talked about initiatives that have been successful in this province. Have any of them, which might serve as an inspiration, delivered results in the fight against poverty?

[Auréa Cormier]

At the Common Front for Social Justice of New Brunswick, we are proactive in this area. For example, last week, we gathered together between 12 and 15 non-profit organizations that truly believe that this poverty reduction plan must have teeth. We are awaiting all of their reactions in order to produce a document, which will be substantial. However, I know that we will have to expend an awful lot of energy. It is for us a little bit like trying to roll a rock up a hill.

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

Exactly.

And is there going to be someone on top of the hill to keep it from falling back down?

[Auréa Cormier]

I say congratulations to Quebec, which is so strong and so exemplary. As you are saying, there was such broad mobilization that the government could not ignore it. I believe New Brunswick still has a long way to go before reaching that level of mobilization. The task is enormous.

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

In 2005, a poll carried out in Quebec revealed that seven people out of ten are not in favour of tax cuts.

[Johanne Perron]

Another thing we could learn from Quebec, with regard to this mobilization, is the fact that it recognizes the participation of civil society in social and economic policy development. That is not really the case here. The Common Front for Social Justice of New Brunswick's work is purely volunteer. Our budget is of $5,000 a year. The situation is quite similar for women's groups. We are facing some difficulties at the present time because our advocacy work in no longer funded at the federal level. When it was, that was of tremendous assistance to us, given that in this province, rights advocacy groups obtain no funding. This element has considerably weakened civil society.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Perron.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I just want to take this time to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.

We appreciate the fact that you are on the front lines and making things happen every day. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to be here and to offer some suggestions as we look at this very important issue.

The meeting is adjourned.