Human Resources Committee on May 13th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you. That is all the time we have. Sometimes, the shortest answers are also the most promising.

Ms. Beaudin, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When you talk about better investments, I guess you mean you would like to see increased funding for social housing.

I have a question which is addressed mainly to you, Ms. Gibeau, because you talked about prescription drugs in your recommendations regarding the Canada Health Act. Could you expand on that, please?

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

Canwest is currently suing the federal government, alleging that a ban on prescription drug advertising violates its freedom of expression. A decision in this case is expected in the summer of 2009. We see this as a real danger; that's why we brought it up.

Also, a study done by an economist shows that if it were to be allowed, it would cost $10 billion more per year in Canada for drugs and health services. That would have a direct impact on the pocketbooks of people who buy medications, something which, in our view, poses a very serious threat, not only to low-income people, but all Canadians.

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

Have you also looked at credit card rates? Can you comment briefly on that?

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

Yes. Regulations are needed to lower credit card rates. There is considerable variation, depending on whether the card was issued by a bank or a department store. So, that is an area where regulations are required.

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

I am also thinking of regulations on advertising.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

Yes. I think we need to look at the fact that people are solicited without ever asking for a credit card, opening the door to all sorts of other types of credit. There is also a parallel credit market that needs to be monitored, one that especially affects low-income Canadians who do not have access to normal credit and thus resort to other forms of credit. Sometimes, that is the only way they can access cash, but it engulfs them in a vicious and endless debt cycle.

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

The day before yesterday, we were in Halifax, where we were even told that people are able to get advances on their pay. There seems to be more and more of that.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

My other question is for Ms. L'Archevêque. You referred to the IFPCA. I think bureaucracy is winning out over support for the people who need the services.

Is it your sense that grant programs jibe with your reality and reflect your needs?

[Janine L'Archevêque]

In a sense, yes, but they are very demanding. You have to provide detailed descriptions, identify all the people who will be involved, and so on. This makes for a lot of extra work for us during the year, because we have to fill out forms, etc. It takes a great deal of time. In terms of administration, in our organization, it is the same people performing multiple tasks. We often ask for psychoeducators, but it seems that no one is paying attention. We even wonder if they read our applications, because our needs are not adequately met.

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

Thank you.

My next question is addressed to each of you. We were in Moncton yesterday and in Halifax before that. People in the other provinces are forever talking about Quebec and citing it as an example because of its framework legislation aimed at fighting poverty, that goes back to 2002. Indeed, they often seem to take inspiration from it—or at least, as often as possible.

Since we are all aware of the fact that there is often a need to do things in parallel and on a concurrent basis, do you see there being one segment of the population whose needs we should be addressing on a priority basis? Which segment of the population should we very quickly aim to focus our energy, time and financial resources on, as you see it? For example, it could be young children or seniors.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Go ahead, Ms. Chevrier.

[Germaine Chevrier]

My spontaneous answer would be that poverty affects everyone. It is very difficult to priorize one group of poor people over another. I think we need to look after families, seniors and everyone, in fact. I also am thinking about people in remote areas. I talked about our proposals dealing with the right to food. I would like to give you a specific example that is one of our recommendations. It has to do with the price of food. Imagine people living in poverty who see the price of food tripling in an Aboriginal or northern community in Quebec where they live, or wherever else it might be. It is really a worry for them and decreases their purchasing power. That is the kind of recommendation we are making. We talk about a basic basket that would allow people to buy food that is nutritious. There is also another concern, which relates to the first week of the month. Why not force certain markets to offer special prices when people receive their welfare cheque? Those are concrete proposals, and we suggest they be acted on in order to fight poverty. Let us stop saying that there are some poor who are poorer than others, because when you are poor, you are already excluded, even if you are living in a rich community. A poor person in Westmount seems even poorer than someone in another region.

I do not have much use for these kinds of distinctions. And that is precisely the principle that we support à the Regroupement des cuisines collectives. We also talk about the need to priorize young people. Young people are part of a family. They have parents who are also poor. Any measures have to be comprehensive.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Ms. Boucher, would you like to add something?

[Denise Boucher]

Ditto! Is that short enough for you, Ms. Folco?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

You all agree.

Thank you, Ms. Beaudin.

Mr. Mulcair, please.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I am very pleased to welcome all the women appearing before us today in this second part of our meeting.

I would like to begin with you, Ms. Boucher, because we have had an opportunity to talk about Bill C-10 and the fact that the Conservative government has shamefully taken away from women the right—because it is a right—to equal pay for work of equal value. Some people think that we are talking about equal pay for equal work—in other words, that a woman who drives a bus will make the same wages as a man; but that issue was resolved 50 years ago in Canada. However, assessing the value of work and ensuring there are no pockets of poverty because they happen to be female-dominated industries or jobs is something we have been working on for 30 years now and which has been well established for 20 years. And now, they come along and take it away! What is even more shocking—and it is worth reminding people of this—is that a party whose official name contains the word “liberty”—namely the Liberal Party—allows the Conservatives to do that by supporting Stephen Harper's extreme right-wing government. Every woman in the Liberal Party voted to take this fundamental right away from women. I find that absolutely scandalous, and we can never repeat that enough, because the fact is it is also very closely linked to poverty.

In terms of your opening remarks, Ms. Gibeau, I wanted to thank you for reminding us of an important truth: only 43% of people who lose their jobs are eligible for employment insurance. Minister Finley is systematically lying when she says that 80% of people who contribute to the Employment Insurance Fund would be—she makes sure she always uses the conditional tense—be eligible when, in fact, people who lose their jobs, by definition, have less stable jobs and live in areas where job insecurity and unemployment are higher. Often, these individuals work part-time and are therefore unable to accumulate enough hours. These are the people who have really lost their jobs, and who cannot access employment insurance. The 80% includes a lot of people, like public servants, whose right to a stable job is not being taken away—let's be clear on that—but people who are not losing their jobs are also included in that percentage. It is an absolute fiction! As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, and that one belongs in the category of damned statistical lies, because it is repeated over and over again by the Conservatives, even though it is absolutely false. I want to thank you for raising that today.

Ms. L'Archevêque, welcome. It is clear there is kind of a “Laval West” theme developing between you and Betty McLeod this morning. I wonder why. So, welcome. I was not aware of your organization previously. Your presentation was very interesting.

Ms. Chevrier, as regards the community kitchens, it is fabulous to hear you explain what that is all about. It could not be clearer and the fruits of your efforts are so positive that it is an absolute pleasure to hear from you today.

I would like to come back to Ms. Boucher and ask her what specific actions the CSN is advocating to reverse the tragedy of Bill C-10. There are Liberals in Newfoundland, for example, whose conscience simply did not allow them to support the budget and who received permission from Michael Ignatieff to vote against it. Women Liberals, however, did not get the same permission to vote against a measure that removes a woman's right to equal pay for work of equal value, and none of them have said a word about it.

What specific actions can be taken to turn around a situation which, at the very least, could be described as troubling in a free and democratic society?

[Denise Boucher]

We intend to continue to denounce this. In my opinion, women's groups in Canada should also be mobilizing, and members of Parliament, men and women, should have refused to pass this legislation. At the same time, we understand that, for the Conservative government, it is much more of an ideological principle, as I see it. It is an ideology aimed at ensuring that the right-wing positions itself in the centre in terms of the objective of equality, while at the same time pursuing goals of inequality and unfairness. In a Canada that calls itself progressive, that is an attitude that I believe we must condemn. In my opinion, women members of Parliament should have challenged this and ensured that the legislation would not pass. At the very least, they should have refused to support it, because this is a very significant setback for Canada—a country which considers itself to be in the vanguard.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Ms. Gibeau, I would also like to thank you for your very clear answer when you stated that it is not up to the federal government to deal with these issues. That is a simple truth—federal government representatives do not know how to do it. Every time they have attempted it, it has been a pathetic failure. I would like you to explain what you meant when you reminded us that the tax credit is only given to people who pay taxes and that 40% of Canadians do not pay any.

[A voice]

Everyone pays taxes.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

Yes, the 40% of people who do not pay income tax are still giving money to the government in the form of other taxes they pay or contributions to various programs. They are contributing to the Treasury.

There are a number of measures, in our opinion. In fact, we have noted a trend towards tax expenditures at the expense of establishing social programs or funding programs. There is a clear advantage to not funding them… Let's take the example of public transit. Why not invest the money that is now allocated to refund a few dollars of the cost of a bus pass through a public transit program that applies to everyone? As you said, people who live in the regions and do not buy a bus pass obviously will not receive a refund, nor will they benefit from public transit in their region or see any kind of improvement in their district, even though people now devote some 13% of their budget to transportation. That is more than they spend on food. That trend is becoming increasingly pronounced because transportation costs are rising as the price of oil goes up. That is one example among many others.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

You are the only ones to have raised the important matter of prescription drug advertising. Other than the cost aspect, which you referred to, advertising encourages people to overmedicate. I know the Conservatives are looking for every possible way of subsidizing Canwest, so we will be keeping an eye on that. Thank you for bringing it up.

[Élisabeth Gibeau]

Thank you.